On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 04:49:58PM -0600, Steve Wise ([email protected]) wrote:
> +static int send_halfclose(struct iwch_ep *ep, gfp_t gfp)
> +{
> + struct cpl_close_con_req *req;
> + struct sk_buff *skb;
> +
> + PDBG("%s ep %p\n", __FUNCTION__, ep);
> + skb = get_skb(NULL, sizeof(*req), gfp);
> + if (!skb) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR MOD "%s - failed to alloc skb\n", __FUNCTION__);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> + skb->priority = CPL_PRIORITY_DATA;
> + set_arp_failure_handler(skb, arp_failure_discard);
> + req = (struct cpl_close_con_req *) skb_put(skb, sizeof(*req));
> + req->wr.wr_hi = htonl(V_WR_OP(FW_WROPCODE_OFLD_CLOSE_CON));
> + req->wr.wr_lo = htonl(V_WR_TID(ep->hwtid));
> + OPCODE_TID(req) = htonl(MK_OPCODE_TID(CPL_CLOSE_CON_REQ, ep->hwtid));
> + l2t_send(ep->com.tdev, skb, ep->l2t);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int send_abort(struct iwch_ep *ep, struct sk_buff *skb, gfp_t gfp)
> +{
> + struct cpl_abort_req *req;
> +
> + PDBG("%s ep %p\n", __FUNCTION__, ep);
> + skb = get_skb(skb, sizeof(*req), gfp);
> + if (!skb) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR MOD "%s - failed to alloc skb.\n",
> + __FUNCTION__);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> + skb->priority = CPL_PRIORITY_DATA;
> + set_arp_failure_handler(skb, abort_arp_failure);
> + req = (struct cpl_abort_req *) skb_put(skb, sizeof(*req));
> + req->wr.wr_hi = htonl(V_WR_OP(FW_WROPCODE_OFLD_HOST_ABORT_CON_REQ));
> + req->wr.wr_lo = htonl(V_WR_TID(ep->hwtid));
> + OPCODE_TID(req) = htonl(MK_OPCODE_TID(CPL_ABORT_REQ, ep->hwtid));
> + req->cmd = CPL_ABORT_SEND_RST;
> + l2t_send(ep->com.tdev, skb, ep->l2t);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int send_connect(struct iwch_ep *ep)
> +{
> + struct cpl_act_open_req *req;
> + struct sk_buff *skb;
> + u32 opt0h, opt0l, opt2;
> + unsigned int mtu_idx;
> + int wscale;
> +
> + PDBG("%s ep %p\n", __FUNCTION__, ep);
> +
> + skb = get_skb(NULL, sizeof(*req), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!skb) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR MOD "%s - failed to alloc skb.\n",
> + __FUNCTION__);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> + mtu_idx = find_best_mtu(T3C_DATA(ep->com.tdev), dst_mtu(ep->dst));
> + wscale = compute_wscale(rcv_win);
> + opt0h = V_NAGLE(0) |
> + V_NO_CONG(nocong) |
> + V_KEEP_ALIVE(1) |
> + F_TCAM_BYPASS |
> + V_WND_SCALE(wscale) |
> + V_MSS_IDX(mtu_idx) |
> + V_L2T_IDX(ep->l2t->idx) | V_TX_CHANNEL(ep->l2t->smt_idx);
> + opt0l = V_TOS((ep->tos >> 2) & M_TOS) | V_RCV_BUFSIZ(rcv_win>>10);
> + opt2 = V_FLAVORS_VALID(0) | V_CONG_CONTROL_FLAVOR(0);
> + skb->priority = CPL_PRIORITY_SETUP;
> + set_arp_failure_handler(skb, act_open_req_arp_failure);
> +
> + req = (struct cpl_act_open_req *) skb_put(skb, sizeof(*req));
> + req->wr.wr_hi = htonl(V_WR_OP(FW_WROPCODE_FORWARD));
> + OPCODE_TID(req) = htonl(MK_OPCODE_TID(CPL_ACT_OPEN_REQ, ep->atid));
> + req->local_port = ep->com.local_addr.sin_port;
> + req->peer_port = ep->com.remote_addr.sin_port;
> + req->local_ip = ep->com.local_addr.sin_addr.s_addr;
> + req->peer_ip = ep->com.remote_addr.sin_addr.s_addr;
> + req->opt0h = htonl(opt0h);
> + req->opt0l = htonl(opt0l);
> + req->params = 0;
> + req->opt2 = htonl(opt2);
> + l2t_send(ep->com.tdev, skb, ep->l2t);
> + return 0;
> +}
...
> +static int act_establish(struct t3cdev *tdev, struct sk_buff *skb, void *ctx)
> +{
> + struct iwch_ep *ep = ctx;
> + struct cpl_act_establish *req = cplhdr(skb);
> + unsigned int tid = GET_TID(req);
> +
> + PDBG("%s ep %p tid %d\n", __FUNCTION__, ep, tid);
> +
> + dst_confirm(ep->dst);
> +
> + /* setup the hwtid for this connection */
> + ep->hwtid = tid;
> + cxgb3_insert_tid(ep->com.tdev, &t3c_client, ep, tid);
> +
> + ep->snd_seq = ntohl(req->snd_isn);
> +
> + set_emss(ep, ntohs(req->tcp_opt));
> +
> + /* dealloc the atid */
> + cxgb3_free_atid(ep->com.tdev, ep->atid);
> +
> + /* start MPA negotiation */
> + send_mpa_req(ep, skb);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void abort_connection(struct iwch_ep *ep, struct sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> + PDBG("%s ep %p\n", __FILE__, ep);
> + state_set(&ep->com, ABORTING);
> + send_abort(ep, skb, GFP_KERNEL);
> +}
Could you convince network core developers that it is not own TCP
implementation which will mess with existing one?
This and a lot of other changes in this driver definitely says you
implement your own stack of protocols on top of infiniband hardware.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
