[openib-general] Re: [libsdp] RFC: Configuration file enhancements

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. Eitan Zahavi <eitan at mellanox.co.il>:
> 3. Today: "match_both" is not clearly described as applying to passive side only, even though it does
> 
>                  not have a meaning for "active" side (since connection is either on INET or SDP)
> 
>     Change: Wrror on cases where the user specified match_both destination ?
> 
> 4. Today: If connect over SDP fails an automatic fall back to INET socket is performed
> 
>     Change: "match_fallback" should be used for active side rules when fallback is required. Moreover
> 
>                   "match" will not fallback ­ i.e. if SDP socket is required and fail ­ connect will return an error.
> 
> Thanks

IMO, unmatch, match_both match_fallback are misleading names: you still do
matching in the same way, you supply a modifier affecting SDP/TCP
selection.

How about we have an extra parameter to match directive?
It could be sdp, tcp, or both.

Thus:

match sdp listen *:12865
match tcp destination 192.169.2.0/24 # tcp only to this destination
match both destination 192.168.1.0/24 # sdp with fallback

-- 
MST