On Nov 27, 2007 3:58 PM, Steve Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For the short term, I claim we just implement this as part of linux > iwarp connection setup (mandating a 0B read be sent from the active > side). Your proposal to add meta-data to the private data requires a > standards change anyway and is, IMO, the 2nd phase of this whole > enchilada... > > Steve. >
I don't see how you can have any solution here that does not require meta-data. For non-peer-to-peer connections neither a zero length RDMA Read or Write should be sent. An extraneous RDMA Read is particularly onerous for a short lived connection that fits the classic active/passive model. So *something* is telling the CMA layer that this connection may need an MPA unjam action. If that isn't meta-data, what is it? Further, the RDMA Read solution is adequate whenever the RDMA Write solution would have been (although at an unnecessary extra cost), but as near as I can determine it is not a complete solution. If the passive side needs an untagged message completion then *something* needs to send it. How can the CM layer (or, I suppose, the ULP itself) know that this untagged NOP message must be sent without meta-data? As I see it, if we want to do the minimum that is required, but be certain that it is adequate, we need a per-connection setup meta-data exchange. _______________________________________________ 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
