> > ia->ri_device is never updated. The only place it is set is in > > rpcrdma_ia_open(). > > So you assume that each ri_id that you will recreate contains the > same device handle? > > I think that for ADDR_CHANGE event when the slave belongs to another > device you will hit a mismatch. CC'ing Sean for more info... I'm not familiar with the xprtrdma code. From the perspective of the rdma_cm, if a listen is associated with a specific IP address, then it will also be associated with a specific device. If an address change occurs, and the address moves to another device, then the app is essentially left with an unusable listen. Received connection requests will not find a matching listen and be dropped. If the address moves ports on the same device, then I think this works out fine in the case where the app ignores the ADDR_CHANGE event. > > It might be saner to construct a virtual ib_device in this > > case that consumers can depend on. > > I'm not sure how does a virtual ib_device can work - that goes > to the verbs themselves... Seems like a layering mis-match to me... I interpreted Chuck as asking for some lower-level way of handling this, so that all ULPs don't need to re-implement this. I agree that this would be hard (impossible?) without ULPs operating at a slightly higher level of abstraction. Maybe the rdma_cm could be extended for this purpose, for example, by exposing its own devices, which either map directly to a verbs device, or handle a virtual mapping. - Sean -- 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
