On 03/27/2015 04:55 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:52:10AM +0100, Michael Wang wrote: >> [snip] > So, in principle, testing the device should almost make sense. The > device is the container for things like PD's MR's and QP's and those > things can migrate between the ports freely, so all post must share > the same attributes for those items. > > However.. AFAIK, we can have RoCEE and IB ports on the same device - > which makes that whole concept seem sort of like nonsense.. > > Anyhow, I would discourage testing the device. Each site has to be > examined and determine if it working with a single port and really > needs a port attribute (which may be a device attribute today) or if > it is doing something device wide and is checking if all ports support > X. I prefer Doug's proposal that these attributes should be setup by vendor at very beginning, unless the attributes keep changing... > >> Let's discuss and figure out the right name in the thread of >> v2 patch set, I guess there will be a lot to be correct :-P > Well, this is actually a hard job. This isn't a mechanical clean up, > each site has to be inspected and understood before it can be > migrated to the correct API. I've send out the RFC patch set, let's see if it is possible to settle some thing done ;-) Regards, Michael Wang > > Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
