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.
