On 27/08/2020 16:01, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 03:58:23PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote: >> On 27/08/2020 15:20, Håkon Bugge wrote: >>>> On 27 Aug 2020, at 14:01, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:20:16AM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote: >>>>> On 27/08/2020 10:53, Kamal Heib wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 04:53:38PM +0300, Kamal Heib wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 04:11:23PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote: >>>>>>>> On 20/08/2020 15:53, Kamal Heib wrote: >>>>>>>>> Now that the query_pkey() isn't mandatory by the RDMA core, this >>>>>>>>> callback can be removed from the usnic provider. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not directly related to this patch, but pyverbs has a test which verifies that >>>>>>>> max_pkeys > 0, maybe this check should be removed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or changed to work only for node_type == e.IBV_NODE_CA? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Kamal >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, do the efa care about pkey? >>>>> >>>>> Depends.. We only support the default pkey so it doesn't do much in terms of >>>>> functionality, but we still need to support it as part of the QP state machine >>>>> for modify QP. >>>> >>>> Does the pkey appear on the wire, or is it just some cruft for API sake? >>> >>> On the wire. Included in the BTH (Base Transfer Header). >> >> He was probably asking specifically about EFA. >> I can't share any details about the wire protocol, does it matter? > > If it isn't actually used for anything then the driver shouldn't > expose PKEY at all, if you do use it then leave it. How would that work? How can you not expose pkeys and still have ibv_ud_pingpong work? You mean remove query_pkey, but still support IBV_QP_PKEY_INDEX in modify_qp?
