[openib-general] APM support in openib stack

[Venkatesh Babu]

 I have implemented this interface and proposing this in bug#172. You 
have to patch it manually to get it working.

 VBabu

somenath wrote:

> I don't see that API( ib_cm_init_rearm_attr() the build I am using.
>
> so I I use a function like this:
>
> modifyqp_rearm(con_t *con) {
>    struct ib_qp_attr qp_attr;
>    int qp_attr_mask =0;
>    int ib_stat =0;
>
>    memset(&qp_attr, 0, sizeof(struct   ib_qp_attr));
>
>    qp_attr.qp_state = IB_QPS_RTS;
>    ib_stat = ib_cm_init_qp_attr(
>                con ->cm_id,
>                &qp_attr,
>                &qp_attr_mask);
>    if (ib_stat) {
>                return ib_stat;
>    }
>      qp_attr.path_mig_state = IB_MIG_REARM;
>    qp_attr_mask |= IB_QP_PATH_MIG_STATE;
>     ib_stat = ib_modify_qp(con->qp, &qp_attr, qp_attr_mask);
>    if (ib_stat) {
>        return ib_stat;
>    }
>    return 0;
> }
>
> Active side sends the LAP. Both side is called with APR event.
> I call this function at the APR handler and it returns me the error -22
> when tried to ib_modify_qp().
>
> see anything wrong? do I have to set anything else?
> or is it broken in the build I am using?
>
> thanks, som.
>
>
> Venkatesh Babu wrote:
>
>> 1. No my application has to make the state trasition from RTS to RTS.
>> In case of failover set path_mig_state to IB_MIG_MIGRATED.
>>
>> In case of rearming call the function ib_cm_init_rearm_attr(). This 
>> function is defined in the bug#172.
>>
>> 2. No, I have my own ULP module which sits alongside to the SDP, SRP, 
>> IPoIB modules.
>>
>> VBabu
>>
>> somenath wrote:
>>
>>> Venkatesh Babu wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. Yes, I can rearm the alternate path by sending LAP and APR 
>>>> messages.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> does the qpair go to rearm state just by sending LAP and APR messages?
>>> I mean, you don't have to change the QP state to REARM explicitely?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. I was sending some network traffic (netperf) while doing these 
>>>> failovers.
>>>>
>>> so, I assume its SDP's APM feature gets tested? is that true?
>>>
>>> thanks, som.
>>>
>