> On 31 Mar 2021, at 19:35, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 05:09:27PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: >> >> >>> From: Haakon Bugge <haakon.bugge@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 8:20 PM >>> >>>> On 31 Mar 2021, at 15:35, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 01:34:06PM +0000, Haakon Bugge wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Actually I bet you could do this same thing entirely in userspace by >>>>>> adjusting rdma_init_qp_attr() to copy the data that would be stored >>>>>> in the cm_id.. ?? >>>>> >>>>> This will definitely not solve the issue for kernel ULP, e.g., RDS. >>>> >>>> Sure, that makes sense to have some rdmacm api in-kernel only >>> >>> Let me send a v2 doing only that. >>> >>>>> Further, why do we have rdma_set_option() with option >>> RDMA_OPTION_ID_ACK_TIMEOUT ? >>>> >>>> It may have been a mistake to do it like that >>> >> Timeout value goes in the CM request message so setting it through >> the cm_id object was likely correct. This reflects into cm msg as >> well as in the QP of the cm_id. > > Ah, yes if it goes in the wire in a CM message it has to go to the > kernel. But does it go on the wire? No. The RNR Retry timer is not part of the negotiation with the peer. Håkon > > Jason
