> In all fairness, there is no requirement that any two ports on the same > device be the same link layer, or if the link layer is Ethernet, there > is no requirement that they can't support both iWARP and RoCE. The > idea > that the parent device defined the supported protocols for all ports of > a device became wrong with the first mlx4 device that could do both IB > and Ethernet. And I think I've heard rumblings of a combined > RoCE/iWARP > device possibly in the future from someone else. It would help if the community didn't continually redefine terms based on the latest set of patches or whims or random hardware feature. At one time an ib_device meant an actual IB device - go figure. Now it's not even a device, but some abstract weirdness collection ports that all support the same transport, or was it link layer, or ... I really have no idea now. The RDMA subsystem really needs to figure out what it wants to be, because even the term RDMA doesn't even apply to all of the devices that it supports. And now we're at the point of arguing over where drivers should go because no one even knows that anymore. -- 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
