> -----Original Message----- > From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 11:52 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 04:45:30PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > > > > -----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? > > I didn't find any reason to expose it as port attribute, especially after Jason's > "request" to do "technology" property per-device. It is at port level in verbs, so it is not harmful to keep it as port level, instead of duplicating it at device level.
