> This isn't dismissing them as silly, it is a pragmatic need in the > core code that everything associated with a PD have a minimum standard > of uniformity - and it is very clear that includes things like the > iwarp special cases and the particular format of the AHs. I was referring to Christoph's comment "that multi-protocol devices are indeed as silly as they seem". Maybe we're using different meanings for the term 'device'. I'm referring to the physical hardware. > For instance, even if a hardware device can run rocee and iwarp > concurrently over a single port, today we absolutely must have > different struct ib_devices for the same physical port to be able to > plug that into the core stack. > > Fundamentally we have the wrong model for such hardware. When a PD is > created it should set the 'protocol' and select the compatible member > ports that belong to the PD. Cap tests and so forth should be done > against the PD, not a port or a device. I agree that the model is wrong. But this is the first email I've read (and I skip reading a lot) mentioning the PD. My concern is that the discussion mentioned removing multi-protocol support completely, rather than improving it. > Fixing that is major surgery, and having cap tests to the port is not > helping clarify the current situation. > > > Restricting all ports on a device to support all protocols is > > different than restricting a device to supporting a single protocol, > > and it affects more than APM. > > What else is there that is cross port in verbs? I was referring to the sharing of resources (e.g. CQs, MRs) across different protocols on the same device. -- 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
