| Message ID | 20100603083106.6047.7657.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
> Since Tetsuo's patch already got merged, now this is the missing part > for local port reservation. > > Cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com> > Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> > Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@redhat.com> > > --- > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c > index b930b81..7b89bab 100644 > --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c > @@ -1978,6 +1978,7 @@ static int cma_alloc_any_port(struct idr *ps, struct rdma_id_private *id_priv) > rover = net_random() % remaining + low; > retry: > if (last_used_port != rover && > + !inet_is_reserved_local_port(rover) && > !idr_find(ps, (unsigned short) rover)) { > int ret = cma_alloc_port(ps, id_priv, rover); > /* Should this inet_is_reserved_local_port() test apply to all the "port spaces" that this code is handling? I honestly am ignorant of the intended semantics of the new local_reserved_ports stuff, hence my question. - R.
On 06/04/10 00:39, Roland Dreier wrote: > > Since Tetsuo's patch already got merged, now this is the missing part > > for local port reservation. > > > > Cc: Roland Dreier<rdreier@cisco.com> > > Cc: Tetsuo Handa<penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> > > Signed-off-by: WANG Cong<amwang@redhat.com> > > > > --- > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c > > index b930b81..7b89bab 100644 > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c > > @@ -1978,6 +1978,7 @@ static int cma_alloc_any_port(struct idr *ps, struct rdma_id_private *id_priv) > > rover = net_random() % remaining + low; > > retry: > > if (last_used_port != rover&& > > + !inet_is_reserved_local_port(rover)&& > > !idr_find(ps, (unsigned short) rover)) { > > int ret = cma_alloc_port(ps, id_priv, rover); > > /* > > Should this inet_is_reserved_local_port() test apply to all the "port > spaces" that this code is handling? I honestly am ignorant of the > intended semantics of the new local_reserved_ports stuff, hence my question. > Yes, but I only found this case, is there any else? Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Should this inet_is_reserved_local_port() test apply to all the "port > > spaces" that this code is handling? I honestly am ignorant of the > > intended semantics of the new local_reserved_ports stuff, hence my question. > Yes, but I only found this case, is there any else? My question was more in the other direction: should this test apply to all the "port spaces" handled here? From looking at the code, it appears the answer is yes -- it seems that putting a port in local_reserved_ports reserves that port for IPv4 and IPv6, UDP, TCP, SCTP, DCCP, everything, so we should probably reserve all RDMA CM ports too.
On 06/05/10 00:04, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > Should this inet_is_reserved_local_port() test apply to all the "port > > > spaces" that this code is handling? I honestly am ignorant of the > > > intended semantics of the new local_reserved_ports stuff, hence my question. > > > Yes, but I only found this case, is there any else? > > My question was more in the other direction: should this test apply to > all the "port spaces" handled here? From looking at the code, it > appears the answer is yes -- it seems that putting a port in > local_reserved_ports reserves that port for IPv4 and IPv6, UDP, TCP, > SCTP, DCCP, everything, so we should probably reserve all RDMA CM ports too. Yes. So this patch looks good for you? :) Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> So this patch looks good for you? :)
Yes, will queue it up, thanks.
On 06/07/10 23:45, Roland Dreier wrote: > > So this patch looks good for you? :) > > Yes, will queue it up, thanks. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c index b930b81..7b89bab 100644 --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c @@ -1978,6 +1978,7 @@ static int cma_alloc_any_port(struct idr *ps, struct rdma_id_private *id_priv) rover = net_random() % remaining + low; retry: if (last_used_port != rover && + !inet_is_reserved_local_port(rover) && !idr_find(ps, (unsigned short) rover)) { int ret = cma_alloc_port(ps, id_priv, rover); /*
Since Tetsuo's patch already got merged, now this is the missing part for local port reservation. Cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com> Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@redhat.com> --- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html