Roland Dreier wrote:
> iWARP is just another protocol on top of TCP - like iSCSI. There is
> no good reason to invent another TCP port maintainer per TCP user
> type trying to synchonize with the kernel if the resource is host
> global and already maintained by the kernel.
I think the counter-argument to this is than an iWARP offload NIC is an
independent TCP stack and hence should not be tied into the host stack.
It's interesting that you bring up iSCSI -- as I understand things,
iSCSI offload HBAs are typically configured with their own IP, through a
separate mechanism. (The port collision problem is not likely to be hit
with iSCSI, since the HBA is an initiator and hence does only active
connections, and a 4-tuple collision between connections to the iSCSI
target is not likely and other host stack traffic is extremely unlikely)
Roland, do you think the iSCSI approach is a "good design" for iWARP
devices?
--
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
