[ofa-general] [PATCH RFC v3 1/2] RDMA/Core: MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS support

[Or Gerlitz]

Roland Dreier wrote:
>  > * talking about remote invalidation, I understand that it requires
>  > support of both sides (and hence has to be negotiated), so the
>  > IB_DEVICE_SEND_W_INV device capability says that a device can
>  > send-with-invalidate, do we need a IB_DEVICE_RECV_W_INV cap as well?
>
> I think we decided that all of these related features will be indicated
> by IB_DEVICE_MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS to avoid an explosion of capability bits.
send-with-invalidate is a little different in the sense that we would 
probably want to expose remote invalidation through libibverbs such that 
user space block/file targets (eg the iSER layer of STGT) would be able 
to use it, but (at least in this point of time) not expose the other 
memory management extensions to user space.

BTW - what's the status of the send-with-invalidate patches to the core 
and mlx4?
>  ZBVA would require adding some flag to request ZBVA when registering.
So this flag would be added as a field in the WR? for the current 
proposal, can the ULP dictate the VA as done with the current FMR API 
exposed by the core?

Or.