> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:openib-general- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Hellwig > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [openib-general] putting in dead wood for DAPL and > similarabomination > > Please don't put in things like the address translation service or > memory windows for DAPL folks. The IB code in the kernel already > has far too much unused stuff and adding more will not go past reviews > for kernel inclusions - as will DAPL itself exactly because of such > utter stupidities.
Even if your approach to DAPL was right you still have address translation service in SDP, and would need one for NFS/RDMA, and another one to iSER and another one for Lustre, etc' (even if they are coded directly to the verbs) Not to mention other protocols that access the SA (e.g. SRP, ..). So is your idea to duplicate that functionality for all the ULPs ? Would that make the code simpler and easier to maintain ? Yaron _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
