On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:37:26PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 06:30 +0000, Liran Liss wrote: > > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hi Ira, > > > > OPA cannot impersonate IB; OPA node and link types have to be > > designated as such. In terms of MAD processing flows, both > > explicit (as in the handle_opa_smi() call below) and implicit code > > paths (which share IB flows - there are several cases) must make > > this distinction. > > As far as in the kernel is concerned, the individual capability bits > are much more important. I would actually like to do away with the > node_type variable from struct ib_device eventually. As for user > space, All SMI code has different behavior if it is running on a switch or HCA, so testing for 'switchyness' is very appropriate here. cap_is_switch_smi would be a nice refinement to let us drop nodetype. I don't have a problem with sharing the IBA constant names for MAD structures (like RDMA_NODE_IB_SWITCH) between IB and OPA code. They already share the structure layouts/etc. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
