Re: [PATCH 5/5] dapl-2.0 - scm, ucm: add pkey, pkey_index, sl override for QP's
Hefty, Sean wrote: The index isn't guaranteed to be the same across all nodes. If a consumer is going to manually control this, they should really be forced to use the actual pkey. yes, I saw this confusion in action, for most users pkey index doesn't mean anything, it may also change across time, which can break scripts/setting to run specific jobs using specific partitions. Or. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH 5/5] dapl-2.0 - scm, ucm: add pkey, pkey_index, sl override for QP's
-Original Message- From: Hefty, Sean Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 10:27 AM To: Davis, Arlin R; linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org; ofw_list Subject: RE: [PATCH 5/5] dapl-2.0 - scm, ucm: add pkey, pkey_index, sl override for QP's On a per open basis, add environment variables DAPL_IB_SL, DAPL_IB_PKEY, DAPL_IB_PKEY_INDEX Why do you need both the pkey and index? Either by itself is sufficient, but the pkey itself is a better choice IMO. You don't need both, it's just a matter of convenience for consumers. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH 5/5] dapl-2.0 - scm, ucm: add pkey, pkey_index, sl override for QP's
You don't need both, it's just a matter of convenience for consumers. I vote that it's a matter of confusion for consumers. The index isn't guaranteed to be the same across all nodes. If a consumer is going to manually control this, they should really be forced to use the actual pkey. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
