> I'll work on this and submit a patch at some point. I have something > rudimentary prototyped but need to polish it up. How strongly do people feel > about manipulating path records in user-mode? My current direction has the > paths entirely managed in the kernel (including caching), since path records > are IB-specific and don't apply to RoCE or iWARP (yes, I'm still hoping some > iWARP vendors join the project, <sigh>).
You're trying to add a protection against access to path records that really doesn't matter. As long as users can allocate and manually transition QP states, where path records are kept doesn't matter. A privileged user space service would be a better place to cache and manage path records given large fabrics and the complexities of trying to handle QoS requirements. - Sean _______________________________________________ ofw mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw
