There are some signature differences between versions. Since redirection exposes signatures it is not trivial for a single redirection to support different signatures. Is this really needed? Thanks,
Arkady Kanevsky email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Appliance Inc. phone: 781-768-5395 1601 Trapelo Rd. - Suite 16. Fax: 781-895-1195 Waltham, MA 02451 central phone: 781-768-5300 > -----Original Message----- > From: Arlin Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 3:37 PM > To: Karl Feind > Cc: Brian Forbes; Edward Mascarenhas; Jeff Hanson; > [email protected] > Subject: [ofa-general] Re: on the coexistance of uDAPLs > > Karl Feind wrote: > > >>comments? other suggestions? > >> > >>-arlin > >> > >> > > > >I'd really like to see a separate RPM (called something like > >dapl-infra) that installs: > > > > 1) /etc/dat.conf (empty) > > 2) a script that addes a provider to /etc/data.conf > > 3) a script that removes a provider from /etc/data.conf > > 4) libdat.so > > > >Any DAPL layer depends on this RPM, and invokes the scripts > (2) and (3) > >in the preinstall and postuninstall setep. > > > >This decouples the DAPL infrastructure from the DAPL instantiations. > > > >Just an idea. > > > > > > Do you see the need for different versions to co-exist (1.1, > 1.2, 2.0)? > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general > > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general > _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
