On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:48:37AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:19:18PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > > On 12/15/2016 12:07 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:28:06AM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > > > > > >> 1) Since your intent is to make this work with multiple versions of the > > >> hfi drivers, I disagree with Jason that just because there is only one > > >> driver today that we should keep it simple. Design it right from the > > >> beginning of multi driver is your intent is, IMO, a better way to go. > > >> You'll work out the bugs in the initial implementation and when it comes > > >> time to add the second driver, things will go much more smoothly. > > > > > > If that is your position then this should be a straight up IB ULP that > > > works with any IB hardware. > > > > Yes, see my comments in point #3 of my previous email... > > Well, I'm not opposed to the vnic idea - Mellanox had (has?) a similar > IB driver. There are lots of good reasons to strictly maintain the > ethernet presentation. Agreed. I'm pretty worried about the idea of putting VNIC into IPoIB. It seems like a force fit at best. > > There is much more going on here than just changing the LLADDR, > essentially everything MAD focused is different compared to ipoib, and > it looks like the required datastructures are different too. This is > more of a map a mac to a OPA_LRH approach with SA mediated discovery, > by my eye. > > The main share is the 'skb send' part, we've talked about hoisting > that out of ipoib in the past anyhow. A generic verb along those lines > would probably allow the sdma optimization for hfi for both this new > ulp and ipoib without creating such an ugly HFI1 specific interface. I'm not sure what you mean about "skb send" being used by ipoib. Right now IPoIB already supplies a "generic skb send" for _Verbs_ in ipoib_send. I don't know what other devices would do to implement ipoib_send? To me, it seems like the abstraction for IPoIB is at the proper layer now. For OPA, the hfi driver supports both IPoIB and VNIC. So expecting IPoIB and VNIC to use a generic "skb send" in ib_device is going to make hfi1 do a lot of work to determine which ULP is calling it or make the interface kind of ugly. Either way I don't see how this is better than a separate set of functions. IMO the cleanest way to "clean up the ugly HFI1 interface" is to just put the VNIC operations into ib_device similar to the iWarp specific structure "iw_cm_verbs" which is there today. If a device supports the VNIC operations then it can set the pointer and if not it will be NULL. VNIC will look for that pointer for the support it needs. If in the future other devices need modifications to that interface we can modify it then. Ira > > 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 -- 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
