On Tuesday 13 May 2008 19:58:11 Steve Wise wrote: > Yes, by adding flow control. And it could be iwarp-specific if you > want. I would not suggest relying on connection termination and > re-establishment as the way to handle this :).
No, not in the long term. But let's hold off on the flow control stuff for a little - I would first like to finish my patch set and hand it out for you folks to bang on it, rather than the other way round. Okay with you guys? > I assume nothing would fly that regresses IB performance. Worst case, > you have an iwarp-specific RDS transport like you do for TCP, I guess. > Hopefully though, IB + iWARP will be a common transport. If it turns out that way, fine. If iWARP ands up sharing 80% of the code with IB except the RDMA specific functions, I think that's very much acceptable, too. Olaf -- Olaf Kirch | --- o --- Nous sommes du soleil we love when we play [EMAIL PROTECTED] | / | \ sol.dhoop.naytheet.ah kin.ir.samse.qurax _______________________________________________ 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
