From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-100.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-100.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9A33209F5F; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 13:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.100 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734009239; cv=none; b=Mr75rDuzyQdQuVBYNE6OKA2o9HY41O2BOBf6l+J9YibBfCzykyiZd65NHJIq66NVnhEtPgaHGmdVrntIBFQYoObLQlLAyqUxUBFw3nil3vnymJgI+wM46jwBqIpTqUTO1NFSgtJ6gTuiiYMcn1+1efwTAz3CGUstT3Yv09rlhVU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734009239; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8ZxdqX3677DIbR7WzIe7BoYgv1eV+CE7CNkvztLo224=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=O7fGRqVjStJ+uqQCQa5S3GiTi6tYFxIe2jCTNyTSJLCZ4+Z8wOASZHMR1LVq/bvAd0T3j2nrwvnWSBooWAL8Qoo0dVwGVk0X4GIlTANaMSkvmroWHXUpy1y2d4IChU2m8xocpMbsE2pNLzRFxCWstlSIxGgJ5LW/kN/sKtYadjk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=Yv+GVMEZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.100 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="Yv+GVMEZ" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1734009230; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=I/mdsBc2XXbIj10bhSyyhla6NBjcnS9BYPIXBNq4lm0=; b=Yv+GVMEZERG878asvO5T6KTBSxXTajRiksDeLqejOop9gA/lzM6gimThnScORpwQcAIiJqcZ7LdUJe5+0vENdiMpz83mvQARg+oGaFMRowac9N9ebeXjcEAsBQsqXVIuQCxyo0sFNTJ6r0UIx9nzz6JMPUbPfCjv+p0MBjSCfiA= Received: from 30.221.100.127(mailfrom:guangguan.wang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WLLqqd-_1734009227 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:13:49 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:13:47 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RESEND v3 2/2] net/smc: support ipv4 mapped ipv6 addr client for smc-r v2 To: Paolo Abeni , Halil Pasic Cc: wenjia@linux.ibm.com, jaka@linux.ibm.com, alibuda@linux.alibaba.com, tonylu@linux.alibaba.com, guwen@linux.alibaba.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, horms@kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dust Li References: <20241211023055.89610-1-guangguan.wang@linux.alibaba.com> <20241211023055.89610-3-guangguan.wang@linux.alibaba.com> <20241211195440.54b37a79.pasic@linux.ibm.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Guangguan Wang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2024/12/12 20:49, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On 12/11/24 19:54, Halil Pasic wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:30:55 +0800 >> Guangguan Wang wrote: >> >>> AF_INET6 is not supported for smc-r v2 client before, even if the >>> ipv6 addr is ipv4 mapped. Thus, when using AF_INET6, smc-r connection >>> will fallback to tcp, especially for java applications running smc-r. >>> This patch support ipv4 mapped ipv6 addr client for smc-r v2. Clients >>> using real global ipv6 addr is still not supported yet. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Guangguan Wang >>> Reviewed-by: Wen Gu >>> Reviewed-by: Dust Li >>> Reviewed-by: D. Wythe >>> Reviewed-by: Wenjia Zhang >>> Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic >> >> Sorry for the late remark, but does this need a Fixes tag? I mean >> my gut feeling is that this is a bugfix -- i.e. should have been >> working from the get go -- and not a mere enhancement. No strong >> opinions here. > > FTR: my take is this is really a new feature, as the ipv6 support for > missing from the smc-r v2 introduction and sub-system maintainers > already implicitly agreed on that via RB tags. > > Cheers, > > /P Agree. This patch enlarges the scope of using SMCRv2, so I think it is a new feature. Thanks, Guangguan Wang