On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 04:18:37PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-rdma- > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Leon Romanovsky > > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 10:28 AM > > To: Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jason Gunthorpe > > <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; RDMA mailing list <linux- > > rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: [PATCH rdma-next 3/3] RDMA/nldev: Return device protocol > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reuse existing RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_LINK_TYPE to give ability for stable > > names UDEV rule create Ib device stable names based on link type protocol. > > The assumption that devices like mlx4 with duality in their link type under > > one IB device struct won't be allowed in the future. > > > I was under impression that it qedr or cavium driver has iwarp and roce ports on same hca. > Any reason to not have the link type on per port basis? Not really, they don't mix link types in one IB device, I remember that Jason ensured that during code review. > If it already exist at port level, than at device level addition is confusing. > It is like having port_num in ah_attr and also in qp_attr. It is just a name with already existing index and proper values. What name do you think more appropriate? I'll add alias for that, something like "RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_NEW_COOL_NAME = RDMA_NLDEV_ATTR_LINK_TYPE" Thanks >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
