***SPAM*** Re: [ofw] Expose a vendor defined device in ibbus?

[Deepak Gupta]

Have a gr8 New Year to all the members!!!.

Do you we any updates on "vendor defined device in ibbus"?

I wanted to create multiple vnic interfaces irrespective of number of
reachable IOCs.

Currently I am creating vnic child devices on "root" bus.
Inside VNIC driver, I am looking for arrival GUID_IB_AL_INTERFACE and hence
contacting the IBAL.
But since vnic devices are root enumerated, VNIC driver gets loaded very
earlier in boot phase (Before "Extended Base" group to which IB Stack
drivers belong) and hence VNIC device interfaces are not getting initialized
properly.

If we are providing a vendor defined device functionality in ibbus in near
future, then it would be worth for me to wait for it.

Can any one please comment on this.

Regards
Deepak

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Deepak Gupta <deepak.gupta at qlogic.com>wrote:

> All,
>
> I came across one more question in my mind which are I think is not clear
> to me after reading the whole thread.
>
> In new design being discussed:-
> Are we making sure that we can have more than one child devices configured
> for the same IOC.
> Currently, there is one child device created per IOC discovered.
>
> Having more than one child device configured for same IOC is a requirement
> if a user wants two different ULP interfaces to be created on host side.
> Consider a case in which a host is connected to a single IOC and IOC is
> connected to a ethernet network via switch.
> If there are two different IP subnets then there is a requirement of two
> different Ethernet interfaces on the host side too.
>
> Please let me know if you need more clarification of my question.
>
> Regards
> Deepak
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Deepak Gupta <deepak.gupta at qlogic.com>wrote:
>
>> Please see below.
>>
>> Regards
>> Deepak
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Fab Tillier <
>> ftillier at windows.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Fab Tillier
>>> > <ftillier at windows.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> >> Are there other properties that I have missed that are needed?
>>> >
>>> > We need a way in which devices created should be configured for
>>> > failovers ( ULPs like VNIC, SRP need more configurable failovers).
>>> > Looking at IBAL's code it create the devices based on the reachable
>>> > IOC's and thus failover's are possible across the HCA/ports and not
>>> > across two different IOCs.
>>> > Users can have a case in which two different IOCs connected to same
>>> > physical network/storage (redundancy is provided for high availability)
>>> > and want a failover across the IOCs.
>>>
>>> This would be done via LBFO for network devices, and MPIO for storage
>>> devices.  I think having the bus driver report a single IOC that really maps
>>> to two IOCs on the fabric is asking for management problems.  Further,
>>> LBFO/MPIO can provide failover between different device types, so the
>>> failover devices don't have to be identical HW.
>>
>>
>> I don't know about how MPIO works. But for LBFO,  BundleID param will have
>> to be included in extended params then so that user gets the freedom of
>> bundling  different failover configurations.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Fab
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofw/attachments/20090106/574b8a0d/attachment.html>