Re: [ofa-general] [PATCH RFC v3 1/2] RDMA/Core: MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS support

Mon, 19 May 2008 06:58:23 -0700

Talpey, Thomas wrote: 
At 09:40 AM 5/19/2008, Steve Wise wrote:
  
I suggest to use a "page_shift" notation and not "page_size" to comply 
with the kernel semantics of other APIs.

      
Ok, I wondered about that.  It will also ensure a power of two.
    

Does it have to be ^2? In the iWARP spec development, we envisioned
the possibility of arbitrary page sizes. I don't recall any such dependency
in the protocol architecture.

I didn't add block mode support since its not available anywhere in the Linux RDMA API.  I'd rather _not_ introduce that at this point.

Storage has been known to adopt non ^2 blocks, for instance including
block checksums in sectors, etc. If transferred, these will become quite
inefficient on ^2 hardware.
Is this true today for any of the existing RDMA ULPs that will utilize fastreg?

Steve.

_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to