> -----Original Message----- > From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 11:42 AM > To: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jason Gunthorpe > <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; RDMA mailing list <linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 3/3] RDMA/nldev: Return device protocol > > 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" Why can't we keep it as port attribute?
