[SPDK] Comparing discovery log page to the spec definition

[SPDK] Comparing discovery log page to the spec definition

[Limor Halutzi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 681 bytes --]

Hi Guys,

I am working on comparing the discovery log page to the spec and I noticed that there is a trello task on this issue (Audit and make fully spec compliant the implementation of the Discovery Log Page) and I have some questions:


  1.  TREQ (byte 03) - We don't need a secure session and in our system this field is set to not specified (0).
Do we need to change it to not required (2)?
What is the different between these two options?
  2.  I compared the log page entry struct with the log page entry from the spec and they are the same.
In addition, I checked that the values are valid to my machine.
What is required to close this task?

Thanks,
Limor

Re: [SPDK] Comparing discovery log page to the spec definition

[Walker, Benjamin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2510 bytes --]

On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 08:08 +0000, Limor Halutzi wrote:
> Hi again,
> 
> I saw that the TSAS field, byte#1 (RDMA Provider Type - RDMA_PRTYPE) value is
> 0 (not specified).
> We expect that this value will be 2 (Infiniband RoCEV2).
> Everything is working properly and we succeeded to connect but I just wanted
> to verify that the 'not specified' value is OK and supports Infiniband RoCEV2.

The RDMA transport supports RoCEv2, iWARP, and Omnipath. Returning 0 is the
safest choice. If we're able to add code to correctly detect between those 3 we
could return a more specific value.

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Limor
> ________________________________
> From: Michal BenHaim <michal.benhaim(a)kaminario.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 11:42 AM
> To: Limor Halutzi <Limor.Halutzi(a)kaminario.com>
> Subject: Fw: [SPDK] Comparing discovery log page to the spec definition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> best regards,
> 
> Michal Ben Haim
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Walker, Benjamin <benjamin.walker(a)intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 7:26 PM
> To: spdk(a)lists.01.org
> Cc: Michal BenHaim
> Subject: Re: [SPDK] Comparing discovery log page to the spec definition
> 
> On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 12:54 +0000, Limor Halutzi wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> > 
> > I am working on comparing the discovery log page to the spec and I noticed
> > that there is a trello task on this issue (Audit and make fully spec
> > compliant
> > the implementation of the Discovery Log Page) and I have some questions:
> > 
> > 
> >   1.  TREQ (byte 03) - We don't need a secure session and in our system this
> > field is set to not specified (0).
> > Do we need to change it to not required (2)?
> 
> I think we should change this to not required as you indicate, but what we're
> returning seems technically correct.
> 
> > What is the different between these two options?
> >   2.  I compared the log page entry struct with the log page entry from the
> > spec and they are the same.
> > In addition, I checked that the values are valid to my machine.
> > What is required to close this task?
> 
> I moved it to closed. Thanks!
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Limor
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > SPDK mailing list
> > SPDK(a)lists.01.org
> > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SPDK mailing list
> SPDK(a)lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk

Re: [SPDK] Comparing discovery log page to the spec definition

[Limor Halutzi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1975 bytes --]

Hi again,

I saw that the TSAS field, byte#1 (RDMA Provider Type - RDMA_PRTYPE) value is 0 (not specified).
We expect that this value will be 2 (Infiniband RoCEV2).
Everything is working properly and we succeeded to connect but I just wanted to verify that the 'not specified' value is OK and supports Infiniband RoCEV2.


Thanks,
Limor
________________________________
From: Michal BenHaim <michal.benhaim(a)kaminario.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 11:42 AM
To: Limor Halutzi <Limor.Halutzi(a)kaminario.com>
Subject: Fw: [SPDK] Comparing discovery log page to the spec definition




best regards,

Michal Ben Haim



________________________________________
From: Walker, Benjamin <benjamin.walker(a)intel.com>
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 7:26 PM
To: spdk(a)lists.01.org
Cc: Michal BenHaim
Subject: Re: [SPDK] Comparing discovery log page to the spec definition

On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 12:54 +0000, Limor Halutzi wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I am working on comparing the discovery log page to the spec and I noticed
> that there is a trello task on this issue (Audit and make fully spec compliant
> the implementation of the Discovery Log Page) and I have some questions:
>
>
>   1.  TREQ (byte 03) - We don't need a secure session and in our system this
> field is set to not specified (0).
> Do we need to change it to not required (2)?

I think we should change this to not required as you indicate, but what we're
returning seems technically correct.

> What is the different between these two options?
>   2.  I compared the log page entry struct with the log page entry from the
> spec and they are the same.
> In addition, I checked that the values are valid to my machine.
> What is required to close this task?

I moved it to closed. Thanks!

>
> Thanks,
> Limor
>
> _______________________________________________
> SPDK mailing list
> SPDK(a)lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk

Re: [SPDK] Comparing discovery log page to the spec definition

[Walker, Benjamin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1079 bytes --]

On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 12:54 +0000, Limor Halutzi wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> 
> I am working on comparing the discovery log page to the spec and I noticed
> that there is a trello task on this issue (Audit and make fully spec compliant
> the implementation of the Discovery Log Page) and I have some questions:
> 
> 
>   1.  TREQ (byte 03) - We don't need a secure session and in our system this
> field is set to not specified (0).
> Do we need to change it to not required (2)?

I think we should change this to not required as you indicate, but what we're
returning seems technically correct.

> What is the different between these two options?
>   2.  I compared the log page entry struct with the log page entry from the
> spec and they are the same.
> In addition, I checked that the values are valid to my machine.
> What is required to close this task?

I moved it to closed. Thanks!

> 
> Thanks,
> Limor
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SPDK mailing list
> SPDK(a)lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk