Having a few schemes availabe in the core code that the driver can chose
from seems like a much more sensible option.
I think that makes sense, but several of the schemes we are working
with are effectively single-vendor schemes. Indirect MR and DIX are
good examples of things that only one
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:24:26AM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Having a few schemes availabe in the core code that the driver can chose
from seems like a much more sensible option.
I think that makes sense, but several of the schemes we are working
with are effectively single-vendor
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 03:31:53AM -0700, 'Christoph Hellwig' wrote:
I'm not too excited about moving the code in the drivers. The RDMA
subsystem actually has a lot more hardware drivers than ULDs, so moving
logic into them seems like a major step backwards. From my journeys
into the drivers
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:55:29AM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
If there is one thing worse than a complicated API, it is a restrictive
one. I'd much rather ULPs just having a simple API for registering
memory.
Quite to the contrary. The complex API almost asks for weird abuses
and twists.
On 7/9/2015 8:01 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 02:02:03PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
We have protocol that involves remote memory keys transfer in their
standards so I don't see how we can remove it altogether from ULPs.
This is why I've been talking about local and
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:55:29AM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
IMHO, memory registration is memory registration. The fact that we are
distinguishing between local and remote might be a sign that this might
be a wrong direction to take. Sorry.
I belive they are very different, yes, if you sit
