>-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hefty, Sean >Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:11 AM >To: Fab Tillier; Leonid Keller; ofw_list >Subject: Re: [ofw] partial review of mlx4 branch > >> 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.
How would a kernel driver establish a trusted communications link with a user-space path record service? What is the failover position for the case when the user-space PR agent is unavailable? Would a caching user-space PR agent be accessible from other nodes? > >- Sean >_______________________________________________ >ofw mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw _______________________________________________ ofw mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw
