> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 09:49:03PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > > > >>>The new RW API will need this. > > >>> > > >>>Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > >>>Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>Tested-by: Steve Wise <swise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > >>I'm not opposed to this change but traditionally QPs are bound to a > > >>device not to a single port. > > > > > >Right, this was done because rdma_protocol_iwarp takes a port number. > > > > > >I think we discussed this once, the core code doesn't actually support > > >different protocols on different ports, so the port_num argument to > > >rdma_protocol_iwarp is redundant. > > > > > >This all starts to look really goofy when multi-port APM is used and > > >the QP's port number changes dynamically at runtime. (I have some > > >experimental patches that do that), I'd rather see all the port_num > > >stuff in this series go away. :( > > > > HCH and I complained about this per-port distinction in several private > > conversations. I'd really love to see it go away too. > > I'm in support of eliminating them. One protocol per device. > Ditto. > IB APM hard requires those semantics, and that reflects the reality of > all the drivers today. > > Nothing more is required than sending a patch, IHMO.. > I've been trying to sift through the original threads regarding rdma_protocol_iwarp() and friends. I couldn't find anybody advocating hard that the protocol/transport type should be per port. I think this thread has Doug stating it really should be per-device and static. Doug, correct me if I'm wrong... https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/10/612 Steve. -- 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
