-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Feat backend separate transport specific messages #343
Merged
glimchb
merged 3 commits into
opiproject:main
from
artek-koltun:feat-backend-separate-transport-specific-messages
Sep 19, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
seems like we have tuple:
(addr, port, nqn)
for target and again(addr, port, nqn)
for source, no ?maybe we can somehow capture this in it's own message ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The traddr for the target is in the common part (it's the BDF for PCIe), so it needs to be split across two objects here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@benlwalker WDYT about
struct spdk_nvme_transport_id
?https://github.com/spdk/spdk/blob/ee9fb405bfa6f11b75788c38752b2494598bbbd8/include/spdk/nvme.h#L455-L501
I think it is pretty good abstraction what we want to adopt here, why not ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do like that abstraction. To make that work here you'd need to have a FabricsPath with a source and target transport id, and then a MemoryBusPath with just a target transport id (or just traddr), and put the two into a OneOf.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My goal was to have the annotations as precise as possible, in order to provide a correct docs and benefit from some automatic validation tools like
fieldbehavior.ValidateRequiredFields()
call.If we extract those members into a separate message, we probably need to mark
nqn
andport
asOPTIONAL
, since they are not applicable for pcie case, "lying" that they are actually required for fabrics. In the current patch, we clearly state thatnqn
andport
are required by fabrics and not used by pcie