On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 09:55 -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote: > There isn't enough there to go farther. > > What methods is the RDMA_DEVICE_RNIC required to support? > > a) Totally iWARP specific methods. That works, but all you've done > is taken two stacks and put a switch on top of them. kDAPL already > does that quite well. > b) The same methods, but with different struct and enum definitions? > (i.e., a struct iwarp_qp versus a struct ib_qp). IMHO, that doesn't > differ much from a) > c) The same methods but with struct/enums that have common and transport > specific portions? That is doable, in fact that is what RNIC-PI is > today. Repeating that work with the gen2 verbs will be time > consuming. > I don't want to have to wait 4 months to debate the details of this > before I can start working on my next generation of verbs. > d) Use the methods and structs 'as is' and just somehow figure out how > they map to iWARP? That is no more "transport neutral" than Tom DeLay > is "bipartisan".
I think a combination of c) and d) will be the fastest time to kernel. Oh, and please stop waiting and debating. Code speaks much louder than words. -tduffy
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
