On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 01:25:21PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: > well, you didn't address some of my comments (not the ice-cream > ones...), which come to say that this wouldn't be inter-operable if for > one side you convert INET/TCP to IB/IB and for the other side you don't > (e.g userA/userB user/kernel kernel/user etc schemes).
I don't think there will be any compatability issues. Most IP CM active side requirements are trivially met through user space generation of the private data. > Also the functionality added under the bonding scheme is lost, etc. Considering that ACM gets rid of the ND process I don't see how full bonding functionality could have ever been maintained. That said, I think within what Sean has designed there could be something analogous to IP bonding within ACM - features like this are why it is important the name resolution have control over source device selection, not just outgoing route. > I am asking you to have INET/TCP apps enjoy both ACM's DGID and route > resolution without being converted to IB/IB, simple as that. If needed > I'd be happy to assist in making this flow happen. If they are 100% interoperable, and the conversion is transparent to apps that use this new rdma_getaddrinfo thingy, why do you care at all? Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
