On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 01:49:32PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 13:38 -0400, ira.weiny wrote: > > > > > I think if we look closely we'll find that IPoIB today has a hard > > > requirement on cap_sa being true, so lets use that? > > > > I don't think that is appropriate. You have been advocating that the checks > > be clear as to what support we need. While currently the IPoIB layer does (for > > IB and OPA) require an SA I think those checks are only appropriate when it is > > attempting an SA query. > > > > The choice to run IPoIB at all is a different matter. > > Appropriately named or not, Jason's choice of words "has a hard > requirement" is correct ;-) Agreed. I meant that using "cap_sa" is not appropriate. Not that IPoIB did not have a hard requirement... :-D I actually think that _both_ the check for IB link layer and the "cap_sa" is required. Perhaps not at start up... Ira -- 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
