> From: yanjun.zhu@xxxxxxxxx <yanjun.zhu@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 11:17 PM > > October 27, 2022 11:10 AM, "Parav Pandit" <parav@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> From: yanjun.zhu@xxxxxxxxx <yanjun.zhu@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 11:08 PM > >> > >> October 27, 2022 11:01 AM, "Parav Pandit" <parav@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> From: Dust Li <dust.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 10:31 PM > >> > >> 2. else we are in > >> exclusive mode. When the corresponding netdevice of the RoCE or iWarp > >> device is moved from one net namespace to another, we move the RDMA > >> device into that net namespace > >> > >> What do you think ? > >> > >> No. one device is not supposed to move other devices. > >> Every device is independent that should be moved by explicit command. > >> > >> Can you show us where we can find this rule "Every device is > >> independent that should be moved by explicit command."? > >> > >> Also changes like above breaks the existing orchestration, it no-go. > >> > >> In a RoCE device, ib device is related with the net device. When a > >> net device is moved to a new net namespace, if the ib device is not > >> in the same net device, how to make ib device work? > > > > RDMA device should also be moved to the same net namespace as that of > netdev. > > sure. I know the following commands. > > In my commits, the process of moving IB devices to the same net namespace > with net devices is automatically finished. > > Is it OK? > No. Change like this breaks the user space who expect to move the rdma device to the net namespace explicitly. It wont find the device which got moved as part of some other device movement. Currently define scheme covers at least 3 different types of RDMA devices. 1. IB and IPoIB 2. RoCE 3. iWarp Each has somewhat different relation to their net device.
