[ofa-general] Re: initial set of "direct" SDP tests in netperf

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

> Quoting Rick Jones <rick.jones2 at hp.com>:
> Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: initial set of "direct" SDP tests in netperf
> 
> Scott Weitzenkamp (sweitzen) wrote:
> >>>Please note that you should *only* ever stick the SDP family value
> >>>in the socket(3) call. All addresses for connect, bind etc
> >>>are AF_INET, since SDP uses IP addresses for everything.
> >>
> >>Sounds like something trying to be just a little bit pregnant.
> >>
> >>Thankfully, I'm only munging the getaddrinfo() data for the 
> >>local endpoint.
> >
> >
> >See bug https://bugs.openfabrics.org//show_bug.cgi?id=294, I agree
> >connect() and bind() should allow AF_INET_SDP.
> 
> I was poking around - it would be nice if they could take AF_INET_SDP - I 
> have to wonder if IPPROTO_SDP is actually better, but seeing there has been 
> some discussion there (but not having read all of it) I'm just going to go 
> with the flow...

Basically everyone said "it does not matter".
Do you think IPPROTO_SDP is better?

> >About the "direct" SDP tests, instead of copy/pasting the TCP code, how
> >about if you just had a command-line argument that specified SDP, like
> >you do with neterver -6 to specify IPv6 instead of IPv4?
> 
> Well, that could then require I start adding some backflips in "common" 
> code such as where I call getaddrinfo().  Besides, I've already finished 
> the first set of cut and paste :)
> 
> >Speaking of IPv6, does netperf work with IPv6 on Linux?
> 
> Yes, although "Linux" seems to have some issue with link-scope addresses.


-- 
MST