On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 02:39:53PM +0200, Alexandra Winter wrote: > > > On 24.03.23 05:03, Wen Gu wrote: > > > > > > On 2023/3/23 22:46, Halil Pasic wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 11:30:56 +0800 > >> Xuan Zhuo <xuanz...@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > >> > > ... > > > > >> To get back to the things proposed here: the cdid is IMHO > >> a nice thing, and is functionally corresponding to the > >> (S)EID. But it is 16 byte wide, and I have no idea how > >> is it supposed to be used in the CLC handshake. > >> > > > > CLC handshake carry one SEID for all the SMC-D device. Considering > > coexistence with ISM, I am not sure whether we can change or increase > > the SEID.. cc Alexandra > > > > Thanks! > > Wen Gu > > As mentioned by others, discussions are ongoing. > It would be great, if we can agree on a way to use the existing CLC handshake > for SMC-D via virtio-ism and ism-loopback. > In that case SEID needs to be unique per hardware instance, cannot be > increased and > can only be changed for x86 in a non-colliding way. > > An alternative would be to define new a SMC-D(?) protocol variant/version, > where we > are free to define new fields (e.g. UUIDs). > > Alexandra
Problem with tying to hardware is that it is blocking migration (which is a challenge with ism anyway, but still). > > > >> If this is really supposed to work with SMC and not just take > >> inspiration from it, I would like some insight from our > >> SMC experts (they are already on copy). > >> > >> Regards, > >> Halil > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: virtio-dev-unsubscr...@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: virtio-dev-h...@lists.oasis-open.org
