-----"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: -----
>To: "Bernard Metzler" <BMT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>From: "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
>Date: 05/16/2019 05:59PM
>Cc: "Leon Romanovsky" <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Doug Ledford"
><dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-rdma" <linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: iWARP and soft-iWARP interop testing
>
>On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 03:51:47PM +0000, Bernard Metzler wrote:
>>
>>
>> >To: "Bernard Metzler" <BMT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >From: "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
>> >Date: 05/16/2019 05:47PM
>> >Cc: "Leon Romanovsky" <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Doug Ledford"
>> ><dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-rdma" <linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >Subject: Re: iWARP and soft-iWARP interop testing
>> >
>> >On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 03:39:10PM +0000, Bernard Metzler wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >To: "Doug Ledford" <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >From: "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
>> >> >Date: 05/07/2019 06:13PM
>> >> >Cc: "linux-rdma" <linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Bernard
>Metzler"
>> >> ><BMT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >Subject: Re: iWARP and soft-iWARP interop testing
>> >> >
>> >> >On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 04:38:27PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> >> >> So, Jason and I were discussing the soft-iWARP driver
>> >submission,
>> >> >and he
>> >> >> thought it would be good to know if it even works with the
>> >various
>> >> >iWARP
>> >> >> hardware devices. I happen to have most of them on hand in
>one
>> >> >form or
>> >> >> another, so I set down to test it. In the process, I ran
>across
>> >> >some
>> >> >> issues just with the hardware versions themselves, let alone
>> >with
>> >> >soft-
>> >> >> iWARP. So, here's the results of my matrix of tests. These
>> >aren't
>> >> >> performance tests, just basic "does it work" smoke tests...
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, lets imagine to merge this at 5.2-rc1?
>> >> >
>> >> >Bernard you'll need to rebase and resend when it comes out in
>two
>> >> >weeks.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks,
>> >> >Jason
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> I think I addressed all major issues of the current siw RFC.
>> >>
>> >> Probably most important, it's now guaranteed that the remaining
>> >> two objects (QP and MR) are kfree'd after return from the
>> >> ib_devices free call. This makes it easier for future
>development
>> >> of mid layers resource management, as Leon was pointing out.
>> >>
>> >> All IDR usage is gone as well.
>> >>
>> >> I removed the siw protection domain, since there is nothing
>> >> siw specific to be stored within. I just keep a structure
>> >> definition of 'struct siw_pd {struct ib_pd *base_pd}' to
>> >> keep INIT_RDMA_OBJ_SIZE() happy.
>> >
>> >? Really? I iwarp doesn't use a protection domain?
>>
>> Aehm no, siw does not need any siw specific additions to the ib_pd.
>> So there is no need to define any extra siw_pd besides of ib_pd.
>> Except for the INIT_RDMA_OBJ_SIZE thing.
>>
>> siw can just use struct ib_pd. It has all it needs...
>
>So you are using the pointer value of the ib_pd to identify if a
>MR/QP/etc are in the same PD?
>
Right....since that value should stay constant during a PD's life time ;)
Bernard.
