On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:36:48AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 06:34:54PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:04:42AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:37:27AM -0600, Daniel Jurgens wrote: > > > > > > > The only warning that would make sense is if the mixed ports aren't > > > > all IB or RoCE. As you note, CX-3 can mix those two, we don't want to > > > > see warnings about that. > > > > > > I would really like to see cx3 be changed to not do that, then we > > > could finalize this issue upstream: All device ports must be the same > > > protocol. > > > > I don't see the point of such artificial limitation, the users who > > brought CX-3 have option to work in mixed mode and IMHO it is not right > > to deprecate such ability just because it is hard for us to code for it. > > I don't really think it is really too user visible.. Only the device > and port number change, but only if running in mixed mode. Ahh, correct me if I'm wrong, you are proposing to split mlx4_ib devices to two devices once it is configured in mixed mode, so everyone will have one port only. Did I understand you correctly? > > It is not just 'hard for us' it is impossible to reconcile the > differences between ports when enforcing device level things. > > This keeps coming up again and again.. > > Jason
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
