Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
Hi Steve.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:25:04AM -0500, Steve Wise ([email protected]) wrote:
Does creating the whole new netdevice is a too big overhead, or is it
considered bad idea?
I think its too big overhead, and pretty invasive on the low level cxgb3
driver. I think having a device in the 'ifconfig -a' after iw_cxgb3 is
loaded and devices discovered would be a good thing for the admin. This
is the angle Roland suggested. I'm just not sure how to implement it.
But if someone could explain how I might create this full netdevice as a
pseudo device on top of the real one, maybe I could implement it.
Note that non TCP traffic still needs to utilize this interface for ND
to work properly with the RDMA core.
Just a though - what about allowing secondary addresses with the same
address as main one? I.e. change bit of the core code to allow creating
aliases with the same address as main device, so that you would be able
to create ':iw' alias during rdma device initialization?
The problem is that on rdma route/address resolution the rdma core CM
uses the routing table to look up which local device to use. So what we
need is separate ip subnets for rdma vs non rdma tcp.
Also, to avoid the original issue of 4-tuple conflicts, the rdma device
_must_ listen on specific local "rdma-only" ip addresses and thus they
must be not the same address as that used for native host tcp traffic.
Steve.
-
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]
