> On Jul 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Tom Talpey <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 7/3/2023 5:07 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 04:27:23PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 1, 2023, at 12:24 PM, Tom Talpey <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 6/29/2023 11:16 AM, Chuck Lever wrote: >>>>> From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> We would like to enable the use of siw on top of a VPN that is >>>>> constructed and managed via a tun device. That hasn't worked up >>>>> until now because ARPHRD_NONE devices (such as tun devices) have >>>>> no GID for the RDMA/core to look up. >>>>> But it turns out that the egress device has already been picked for >>>>> us -- no GID is necessary. addr_handler() just has to do the right >>>>> thing with it. >>>>> Suggested-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c >>>>> index 889b3e4ea980..07bb5ac4019d 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c >>>>> @@ -700,6 +700,21 @@ cma_validate_port(struct ib_device *device, u32 port, >>>>> if ((dev_type != ARPHRD_INFINIBAND) && rdma_protocol_ib(device, port)) >>>>> goto out; >>>>> + /* Linux iWARP devices have but one port */ >>>> >>>> I don't believe this comment is correct, or necessary. In-tree drivers >>>> exist for several multi-port iWARP devices, and the port bnumber passed >>>> to rdma_protocol_iwarp() and rdma_get_gid_attr() will follow, no? >>> >>> Then I must have misunderstood what Jason said about the reason >>> for the rdma_protocol_iwarp() check. He said that we are able to >>> do this kind of GID lookup because iWARP devices have only a >>> single port. >>> >>> Jason? >> I don't know alot about iwarp - tom does iwarp really have multiported >> *struct ib_device* models? This is different from multiport hw. > > I don't see how the iWARP protocol impacts this, but I believe the > cxgb4 provider implements multiport. It sets the ibdev.phys_port_cnt > anyway. Perhaps this is incorrect. > >> If it is multiport how do the gid tables work across the ports? > > Again, not sure how to respond. iWARP doesn't express the gid as a > protocol element. And the iw_cm really doesn't either, although it > does implement a gid-type API I guess. That's local behavior though, > not something that goes on the wire directly. > > Maybe I should ask... what does the "Linux iWARP devices have but one > port" actually mean in the comment? Would the code below it not work > if that were not the case? All I'm saying is that the comment seems > to be unnecessary, and confusing. It replaces a code comment you complained about in an earlier review regarding the use of "if (rdma_protocol_iwarp())". As far as I understand, /in Linux/ each iWARP endpoint gets its own ib_device and that device has exactly one port. So for example, a physical device that has two ports would appear as two ib_devices each with a single port. Is that not how it works? It's certainly possible I've misunderstood something. Again, this is not about the protocol, it's about how Linux implements it. I'm open to specific suggestions to improve the comment, or I can remove it if the code is sufficiently clear. -- Chuck Lever
