I guess I have not read enough about iwarp yet but if iwarp is sitting
below ib verbs or udapl in the stack and is trying to impose
restrictions which ib verbs or udapl do not adhere to then maybe iwarp
is in the wrong place in the ofed stack.
Having said that I do agree the OMPI community needs to consider where
iwarp plays in its own stack. If it has not already.
Steve Wise wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 16:27 -0400, Donald Kerr wrote:
So then I agree with Andrew, I think you are trying to impose
restrictions on uDAPL which are not part of the Spec.
true, but if you want a single btl for IB and IW, then you'll need to
address this issue in some way...
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
