Roland Dreier wrote: > > I am implementing this only for completeness sake and want to do it with > minimal > > effort. Given the above, do you still see it necessary to use NAPI? > > > Is it acceptable that I roll up the previous NOSRQ patches (other than > this one) into > > a single patch and can that one be integrated first? > > Given that you don't want to actually have something that really > works, I guess there's no point in doing it at all. Since there are > no other IPoIB CM implementations out there yet, maybe it's acceptable > to say that we don't implement a fully RFC-compliant version of the > protocol. >
I believe you may have misinterpreted. If the existing handlers cannot be reused, then I have reservations about having to come up with a complete parallel implementation that will deal with all the issues covered previously -memory usage, falling back to UD mode and the like for what I believe will be seldom used. I therefore want to come up with a "minimal" implementation that will be RFC compliant. Pradeep _______________________________________________ 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
