On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 02:53:37PM +, Liran Liss wrote:
> > From: ira.weiny [mailto:ira.we...@intel.com]
> > [snip]
> >
> > > >
> > > > 2)The name rdma_tech_* is lame.
> > > > rdma_transport_*(), adhering to the above (*) remark, is much better.
> > > > For example, both IB and ROCE *do* use
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 02:44:29PM +, Liran Liss wrote:
> > From: Michael Wang [mailto:yun.w...@profitbricks.com]
>
>
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > Depends on who is "we".
> > > For ULPs, you are probably right.
> > >
> > > However, core services (e.g., mad management, CM, SA) do care about
> >
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:42:26AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:00:15PM +, Liran Liss wrote:
>
> > Currently, the only code in the kernel that has an SMI interface is IB.
> > When OPA is introduced, add the proper helper.
>
> We already have tests checking for
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 02:53:37PM +, Liran Liss wrote:
From: ira.weiny [mailto:ira.we...@intel.com]
[snip]
2)The name rdma_tech_* is lame.
rdma_transport_*(), adhering to the above (*) remark, is much better.
For example, both IB and ROCE *do* use the same transport.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:42:26AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:00:15PM +, Liran Liss wrote:
Currently, the only code in the kernel that has an SMI interface is IB.
When OPA is introduced, add the proper helper.
We already have tests checking for SMI is
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 02:44:29PM +, Liran Liss wrote:
From: Michael Wang [mailto:yun.w...@profitbricks.com]
[snip]
Depends on who is we.
For ULPs, you are probably right.
However, core services (e.g., mad management, CM, SA) do care about
various details.
In some
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:00:15PM +, Liran Liss wrote:
> Currently, the only code in the kernel that has an SMI interface is IB.
> When OPA is introduced, add the proper helper.
We already have tests checking for SMI is supported so QP0 can be
created, this is to support ROCEE
> All I am
2015/4/21/951).
>>
>> Better discussed in another thread.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 8) Remove patch [PATCH v5 26/27] IB/Verbs: Clean up rdma_ib_or_iboe().
>>>>> We do need a transport qualifier, as exemplified in comment 5)
>>>>> above, and
>>
> From: Hefty, Sean [mailto:sean.he...@intel.com]
[snip]
> > > So, I think that our "old-transport" below is just fine.
> > > No need to change it (and you aren't, since it is currently
> > > implemented
> > as a function).
> >
> > I think there is a need to change this. Encoding the transport
tter discussed in another thread.
>
> >
> >>>
> >>> 8) Remove patch [PATCH v5 26/27] IB/Verbs: Clean up rdma_ib_or_iboe().
> >>> We do need a transport qualifier, as exemplified in comment 5)
> >>> above, and
> >> for a complete clean m
From: Hefty, Sean [mailto:sean.he...@intel.com]
[snip]
So, I think that our old-transport below is just fine.
No need to change it (and you aren't, since it is currently
implemented
as a function).
I think there is a need to change this. Encoding the transport into
the node
the logical was right, I really
don't want folks to focus on this issue since it won't broken anything and can
be easily changed once we have the agreement.
Regards,
Michael Wang
OK
Regards,
Michael Wang
Subject: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
Since v4
we have the agreement.
Regards,
Michael Wang
OK
Regards,
Michael Wang
Subject: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
Since v4:
* Thanks for the comments from Hal, Sean, Tom, Or Gerlitz, Jason,
Roland, Ira and Steve :-) Please remind me if anything missed :-P
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:00:15PM +, Liran Liss wrote:
Currently, the only code in the kernel that has an SMI interface is IB.
When OPA is introduced, add the proper helper.
We already have tests checking for SMI is supported so QP0 can be
created, this is to support ROCEE
All I am
On 04/22/2015 07:10 PM, ira.weiny wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:59:52AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 23:36 +, Liran Liss wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> 2)The name rdma_tech_* is lame.
>>> rdma_transport_*(), adhering to the above (*) remark, is much better.
>>>
On 04/22/2015 06:57 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:59:52AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
>>> 2)The name rdma_tech_* is lame.
>>> rdma_transport_*(), adhering to the above (*) remark, is much better.
>>> For example, both IB and ROCE *do* use the same transport.
>>
>> I
been used
>> previously.
>>
>> This helper is just to make the review more easier, we won't need it
>> internally, not to mention after bitmask was introduced :-)
>>
>
> The same...
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Putting it all together
>>>
On 04/22/2015 06:57 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:59:52AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
2)The name rdma_tech_* is lame.
rdma_transport_*(), adhering to the above (*) remark, is much better.
For example, both IB and ROCE *do* use the same transport.
I especially want
On 04/22/2015 07:10 PM, ira.weiny wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:59:52AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 23:36 +, Liran Liss wrote:
[snip]
2)The name rdma_tech_* is lame.
rdma_transport_*(), adhering to the above (*) remark, is much better.
For example, both IB
anything and can be easily changed once we have the agreement.
Regards,
Michael Wang
Regards,
Michael Wang
Subject: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
Since v4:
* Thanks for the comments from Hal, Sean, Tom, Or Gerlitz, Jason,
Roland, Ira and Steve :-) Please
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:59:52AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 23:36 +, Liran Liss wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > 2)The name rdma_tech_* is lame.
> > rdma_transport_*(), adhering to the above (*) remark, is much better.
> > For example, both IB and ROCE *do* use the same
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:59:52AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > 2)The name rdma_tech_* is lame.
> > rdma_transport_*(), adhering to the above (*) remark, is much better.
> > For example, both IB and ROCE *do* use the same transport.
>
> I especially want to second this. I haven't really been
On Apr 21, 2015, at 6:36 PM, Liran Liss wrote:
> An ib_dev (or a port of) should be distinguished by 3 qualifiers:
> - The link layer:
> -- Ethernet (shared by iWARP, USNIC, and ROCE)
> -- Infiniband
>
> - The transport (*)
> -- IBTA transport (shared by IB and ROCE)
> -- iWARP transport
> --
> > So, I think that our "old-transport" below is just fine.
> > No need to change it (and you aren't, since it is currently implemented
> as a function).
>
> I think there is a need to change this. Encoding the transport into the
> node
> type is not a good idea. Having different "transport
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:38:34AM +, Liran Liss wrote:
> This is redundant. All IB ports have SMI, so if you know that you
> are using an IB device, you know you have an SMI.
You should really go back and read the whole thread, this has already
been discussed.
The patch set was developed
won't need it
> internally, not to mention after bitmask was introduced :-)
>
The same...
> >
> >
> > Putting it all together
> > ==
> >
> > We are left with the following helpers:
> > - rdma_is_ib_transport()
> > - rdm
On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 23:36 +, Liran Liss wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> The spirit of this patch-set is great, but I think that we need to clarify
> some concepts.
> Since this will affect the whole patch-set, I am laying out my concerns here
> instead.
>
> A suggestion for the resulting
ot; vs "requires" vs "uses" does not matter.
>
> Regardless we still need more granularity than "Transport" and "Link Layer"
> for many
> of the code choices.
>
> The result of this series is pretty explicit and much cleaner as to what the
t; - rdma_has_gsi() - complements smi; can be used by the mad code for clarity
> - rdma_has_sa()
> - rdma_has_cm()
> - rdma_has_mcast()
I think we can put the discussion on name and new helpers in future, currently
let's focus on these basic reform and make them working stably ;-)
Rega
On 04/22/2015 02:28 AM, ira.weiny wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Highlights:
>> The patch set covered a wide range of IB stuff, thus for those who are
>> familiar with the particular part, your suggestion would be invaluable
>> ;-)
>>
>> Patch 1#~15# included all the logical reform, 16#~25#
So, I think that our old-transport below is just fine.
No need to change it (and you aren't, since it is currently implemented
as a function).
I think there is a need to change this. Encoding the transport into the
node
type is not a good idea. Having different transport semantics
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:38:34AM +, Liran Liss wrote:
This is redundant. All IB ports have SMI, so if you know that you
are using an IB device, you know you have an SMI.
You should really go back and read the whole thread, this has already
been discussed.
The patch set was developed
think we can put the discussion on name and new helpers in future,
currently let's focus on these basic reform and make them working stably ;-)
It's not just the names, it's their semantics.
Any problems with the names proposed above?
Regards,
Michael Wang
Subject: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB
On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 23:36 +, Liran Liss wrote:
Hi Michael,
The spirit of this patch-set is great, but I think that we need to clarify
some concepts.
Since this will affect the whole patch-set, I am laying out my concerns here
instead.
A suggestion for the resulting management
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:59:52AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 23:36 +, Liran Liss wrote:
[snip]
2)The name rdma_tech_* is lame.
rdma_transport_*(), adhering to the above (*) remark, is much better.
For example, both IB and ROCE *do* use the same transport.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:59:52AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
2)The name rdma_tech_* is lame.
rdma_transport_*(), adhering to the above (*) remark, is much better.
For example, both IB and ROCE *do* use the same transport.
I especially want to second this. I haven't really been happy
On Apr 21, 2015, at 6:36 PM, Liran Liss lir...@mellanox.com wrote:
An ib_dev (or a port of) should be distinguished by 3 qualifiers:
- The link layer:
-- Ethernet (shared by iWARP, USNIC, and ROCE)
-- Infiniband
- The transport (*)
-- IBTA transport (shared by IB and ROCE)
-- iWARP
. The new interface is simply
using the old implementation as a stepping stone.
Ira
Subject: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
Since v4:
* Thanks for the comments from Hal, Sean, Tom, Or Gerlitz, Jason,
Roland, Ira and Steve :-) Please remind me if anything missed :-P
On 04/22/2015 02:28 AM, ira.weiny wrote:
[snip]
Highlights:
The patch set covered a wide range of IB stuff, thus for those who are
familiar with the particular part, your suggestion would be invaluable
;-)
Patch 1#~15# included all the logical reform, 16#~25# introduced the
for clarity
- rdma_has_sa()
- rdma_has_cm()
- rdma_has_mcast()
I think we can put the discussion on name and new helpers in future, currently
let's focus on these basic reform and make them working stably ;-)
Regards,
Michael Wang
Subject: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
the function names. "cap" vs "rdma" does not really
matter to me. Likewise "has" vs "requires" vs "uses" does not matter.
Regardless we still need more granularity than "Transport" and "Link Layer" for
many
of the code choices.
Th
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:28:57AM +0200, Michael Wang wrote:
>
> Since v4:
> * Thanks for the comments from Hal, Sean, Tom, Or Gerlitz, Jason,
> Roland, Ira and Steve :-) Please remind me if anything missed :-P
> * Fix logical issue inside 3#, 14#
> * Refine 3#, 4#, 5# with label
- rdma_is_iwarp_transport()
- rdma_is_usnic_transport()
- rdma_is_iboe()
- rdma_has_mad()
- rdma_has_smi()
- rdma_has_gsi() - complements smi; can be used by the mad code for clarity
- rdma_has_sa()
- rdma_has_cm()
- rdma_has_mcast()
> Subject: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
>
>
> Since v4:
nox.co.il
>> Cc: Tom Tucker; Steve Wise; Hoang-Nam Nguyen; Christoph Raisch; Mike
>> Marciniszyn; Eli Cohen; Faisal Latif; Jack Morgenstein; Or Gerlitz; Haggai
>> Eran;
>> Ira Weiny; Tom Talpey; Jason Gunthorpe; Doug Ledford
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: I
n; Faisal Latif; Jack Morgenstein; Or Gerlitz; Haggai
> Eran;
> Ira Weiny; Tom Talpey; Jason Gunthorpe; Doug Ledford
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
>
> Hi, Devesh
>
> On 04/21/2015 07:41 AM, Devesh Sharma wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> &
niszyn; Eli Cohen; Faisal Latif; Jack Morgenstein; Or Gerlitz; Haggai
>> Eran;
>> Ira Weiny; Tom Talpey; Jason Gunthorpe; Doug Ledford; Michael Wang
>> Subject: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
>>
>>
>> Since v4:
>> * Thanks for the commen
Talpey; Jason Gunthorpe; Doug Ledford; Michael Wang
Subject: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
Since v4:
* Thanks for the comments from Hal, Sean, Tom, Or Gerlitz, Jason,
Roland, Ira and Steve :-) Please remind me if anything missed :-P
* Fix logical issue inside 3
Marciniszyn; Eli Cohen; Faisal Latif; Jack Morgenstein; Or Gerlitz; Haggai
Eran;
Ira Weiny; Tom Talpey; Jason Gunthorpe; Doug Ledford
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
Hi, Devesh
On 04/21/2015 07:41 AM, Devesh Sharma wrote:
Hi Michael,
is there a specific git
implementation as a stepping stone.
Ira
Subject: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
Since v4:
* Thanks for the comments from Hal, Sean, Tom, Or Gerlitz, Jason,
Roland, Ira and Steve :-) Please remind me if anything missed :-P
* Fix logical issue inside 3#, 14
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:28:57AM +0200, Michael Wang wrote:
Since v4:
* Thanks for the comments from Hal, Sean, Tom, Or Gerlitz, Jason,
Roland, Ira and Steve :-) Please remind me if anything missed :-P
* Fix logical issue inside 3#, 14#
* Refine 3#, 4#, 5# with label 'free'
*
()
- rdma_is_iboe()
- rdma_has_mad()
- rdma_has_smi()
- rdma_has_gsi() - complements smi; can be used by the mad code for clarity
- rdma_has_sa()
- rdma_has_cm()
- rdma_has_mcast()
Subject: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
Since v4:
* Thanks for the comments from Hal, Sean, Tom
; Or Gerlitz; Haggai
Eran;
Ira Weiny; Tom Talpey; Jason Gunthorpe; Doug Ledford
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
Hi, Devesh
On 04/21/2015 07:41 AM, Devesh Sharma wrote:
Hi Michael,
is there a specific git branch available to pull out all the patches
an;
> Ira Weiny; Tom Talpey; Jason Gunthorpe; Doug Ledford; Michael Wang
> Subject: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
>
>
> Since v4:
> * Thanks for the comments from Hal, Sean, Tom, Or Gerlitz, Jason,
> Roland, Ira and Steve :-) Please remind me if anything
Since v4:
* Thanks for the comments from Hal, Sean, Tom, Or Gerlitz, Jason,
Roland, Ira and Steve :-) Please remind me if anything missed :-P
* Fix logical issue inside 3#, 14#
* Refine 3#, 4#, 5# with label 'free'
* Rework 10# to stop using port 1 when port already assigned
There
Gunthorpe; Doug Ledford; Michael Wang
Subject: [PATCH v5 00/27] IB/Verbs: IB Management Helpers
Since v4:
* Thanks for the comments from Hal, Sean, Tom, Or Gerlitz, Jason,
Roland, Ira and Steve :-) Please remind me if anything missed :-P
* Fix logical issue inside 3#, 14#
* Refine 3
Since v4:
* Thanks for the comments from Hal, Sean, Tom, Or Gerlitz, Jason,
Roland, Ira and Steve :-) Please remind me if anything missed :-P
* Fix logical issue inside 3#, 14#
* Refine 3#, 4#, 5# with label 'free'
* Rework 10# to stop using port 1 when port already assigned
There
56 matches
Mail list logo
