On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Arlin Davis wrote:
> > > --- a/test/dtest/dtest.c > > > +++ b/test/dtest/dtest.c > > > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ > > > #include <inttypes.h> > > > #ifndef DAPL_PROVIDER > > > -#define DAPL_PROVIDER "OpenIB-cma" > > > +#define DAPL_PROVIDER "OpenIB-2-cma" > > > > Should we update OpenIB to ofa? Obviously, this isn't necessary as part of > > this change > > I didn't want to change the 1.2 names for compatibility reasons but for 2.0 we > could move to ofa names for both libraries and provider names. For example, > libdaplcma.so becomes libdaplofa.so, OpenIB-cma becomes ofa. > > For example dat.conf 2.0 entries would look like this: > > ofa u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "ib0 0" "" > ofa-1 u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "ib1 0" "" > ofa-2 u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "ib2 0" "" > ofa-3 u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "ib3 0" "" > ofa-bond u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "bond0 0" "" > > Is that what you had in mind? Yes. _______________________________________________ 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
