From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dennis Dalessandro Subject: Re: [RFC iproute2 0/8] RDMA tool Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 15:26:13 -0400 Message-ID: <2dee6cde-0406-b101-0fe6-c1f6de7c1b1a@intel.com> References: <20170504180216.7665-1-leon@kernel.org> <1493921453.2692.6.camel@sandisk.com> <20170504182542.GD22833@mtr-leonro.local> <1493922625.2692.8.camel@sandisk.com> <20170504184531.GE22833@mtr-leonro.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170504184531.GE22833@mtr-leonro.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Leon Romanovsky , Bart Van Assche Cc: "jiri@mellanox.com" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "ram.amrani@cavium.com" , "sagi@grimberg.me" , "ogerlitz@mellanox.com" , "hch@lst.de" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com" , "stephen@networkplumber.org" , "dledford@redhat.com" , "ariela@mellanox.com" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 05/04/2017 02:45 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 06:30:27PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 21:25 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >>> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 06:10:54PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 21:02 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >>>>> Following our discussion both in mailing list [1] and at the LPC 2016 [2], >>>>> we would like to propose this RDMA tool to be part of iproute2 package >>>>> and finally improve this situation. >>>> >>>> Hello Leon, >>>> >>>> Although I really appreciate your work: can you clarify why you would like to >>>> add *RDMA* functionality to an *IP routing* tool? I haven't found any motivation >>>> for adding RDMA functionality to iproute2 in [1]. >>> >>> We are planning to reuse the same infrastructure provided by iproute2, >>> like netlink parsing, access to distributions, same CLI and same standards. >>> >>> Right now, RDMA is already tightened to netdev: iWARP, RoCE, IPoIB, HFI-VNIC. >>> Many drivers (mlx, qed, i40, cxgb) are sharing code between net and >>> RDMA. >>> >>> I do expect that iproute2 will be installed on every machine with any >>> type of connection, including IB and OPA. >>> >>> So I think that it is enough to be part of that suite and don't invent >>> our own for one specific tool. >> >> Hello Leon, >> >> Sorry but to me that sounds like a weak argument for including RDMA functionality >> in iproute2. There is already a library for communication over netlink sockets, >> namely libnl. Is there functionality that is in iproute2 but not in libnl and >> that is needed for the new tool? If so, have you considered to create a new >> library for that functionality? > > It is not hard to create new tool, the hardest part is to ensure that it is > part of the distributions. Did you count how many months we are trying to > add rdma-core to debian? I do agree that it is a strange pairing and am not really a fan. However at the end of the day it's just a name for a repo/package. If the iproute folks are fine to include rdma in their repo/package, great we can leverage their code for CLI and other common stuff. Now if the interface was something like "ip -FlagForRdma ..." I would object to that, but the interface is "rdma ... " so from users perspective it's different tools. They don't need to care that it was sourced from a common git repo. Just as an aside this already works a bit with OPA: $ ./rdma link 1/1: hfi1_0/1: ifname NONE cap_mask 0x00410022 lid 0x1 lid_mask_count 0 link_layer InfiniBand phys_state 5: LinkUp rate 100 Gb/sec (4X EDR) sm_lid 0x1 sm_sl 0 state 4: ACTIVE Leon I'll get you more feedback and testing, I've just been really bogged down this week, sorry. -Denny