[ofa-general] Re: [ewg] [PATCH] IB/core: Add support for Receive Core Affinity

[Eli Cohen]

> >  
> > +int ib_create_qp_range(struct ib_pd *pd, struct ib_qp_init_attr *qp_init_attr,
> > +		       int nqps, int align, struct ib_qp *list[])
> 
> It just seems wrong to me to require the caller to specify the alignment
> restrictions. Isn't this HCA specific?
I agree with you about this, but since my previous posts on the issue
did not receive too much attention, I did not want to change my
implementation before the issue has been discussed.

>  Is IPoIB really going to know
> whether or not the QP numbers returned by this call are "aligned"
> or not? What if I call ib_create_qp_range() with nqps=3 and align=0?
I am not sure I understand your argument here: in this case you create 3
consecutive QPs with no other restrictions on the number of of the
first. 

> 
> Also, in ib_verbs.h, struct ib_qp_attr now has a struct rca_attr field.
> I don't see why the struct rca_attr field is needed for ib_modify_qp().
> It seems to me that this information should be stored as part of the
> QP info when creating the N QPs. Why should the verbs caller need to
> know about this? The values are determined by the HCA when the QPs
> are created.
> 
I totally agree with you here too and I also sent an email about that
some time ago. Again, I want to trigger a discussion to close on the API
before re-implementing. 

I hope to get more opinions and then re-work the patch.