On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 08:05:05PM +0000, Sean Hefty wrote: > > > As the existing rdma subsystem doesn't seems to support the above use > > > case yet > > > > Why would you say that? If EFA needs SRD and RDM objects in RDMA they > > can create them, it is not a big issue. To my knowledge they haven't asked for > > them. > > When looking at how to integrate UET support into verbs, there were > changes relevant to this discussion that I found needed. > > 1. Allow an RDMA device to indicate that it supports multiple transports, separated per port. > 2. Specify the QP type separate from the protocol. > 3. Define a reliable, unconnected QP type. > > Lin might be referring to 2 (assuming 3 is resolved). That's at a verbs level though, at the kernel uAPI level we already have various ways to do all three.. What you say makes sense to me for verbs. Jason
