RE: [PATCH v5] libibverbs: display gid type in ibv_devinfo

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Leon,

> From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 12:48 PM
> 
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 04:27:45AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> >
> >
> > > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 11:34 PM
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > Due to lack of support of GID's netdev, v1/v2 type info in ibv_devinfo output,
> most users that I know of are using non upstream show_gids script.
> > So changing format here shouldn't break the existing users scripts.
> > There may be some scripts that may find this format different.
> > So I think printing both is likely a more safer option.
> 
> I don't understand this argument. Output from example tool (ibv_devinfo)
> inside libibverbs can't be considered API and we can't live in constant fear that
> some user script will break. Of course, we will try to keep it stable, but there is
> no such promise.
> 
I agree with your point that ibv_devinfo output is not an API.
I haven't come across a user who uses ibv_devinfo output as an API given lack of info in it.
I really do not have any strong opinion to keep both format or single format.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux