On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:31:06PM +0530, Devesh Sharma wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:23 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 12:52:04PM -0500, Devesh Sharma wrote:
> > > It becomes difficult to make out from the output of ibv_devinfo
> > > if a particular gid index is RoCE v2 or not.
> > >
> > > Adding a string to the output of ibv_devinfo -v to display the
> > > gid type at the end of gid.
> > >
> > > The output would look something like below:
> > > $ ibv_devinfo -v -d bnxt_re2
> > > hca_id: bnxt_re2
> > > transport: InfiniBand (0)
> > > fw_ver: 216.0.220.0
> > > node_guid: b226:28ff:fed3:b0f0
> > > sys_image_guid: b226:28ff:fed3:b0f0
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > > phys_state: LINK_UP (5)
> > > GID[ 0]: fe80::b226:28ff:fed3:b0f0, IB/RoCE v1
> > > GID[ 1]: fe80::b226:28ff:fed3:b0f0, RoCE v2
> > > GID[ 2]: ::ffff:192.170.1.101, IB/RoCE v1
> > > GID[ 3]: ::ffff:192.170.1.101, RoCE v2
> >
> > v1 GIDs are GIDs and should never be formed as IPv6 addreses..
> So, V1 gids would fall back to old style of display and there will be
> one more check for gid-type inside the loop...
Yes
Parav should we show both the v6 and classic format for a v2 GID? ie
GID[ 3]: 0000:0000:0000:ffff:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx, RoCE v2
::ffff:192.170.1.101
Lets also supress the 'IB/RoCE v1' string on !roce device. IB only has
one GID type, there is no reason to print anything
Jason
