On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:38:15AM -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote: > OpenRDMA discussed with the DAT Collaborative the idea > of subsuming the responsibilities of the DAT Registry, so that > the OpenRDMA directory could take the 'dat_xxx' calls > directly. When the device dependent logic used a dynamically > loaded verbs, those would be invoked directly. When the > device dependent logic required a full DAT Provider (because > it did not provide a recognized verbs interface) then the > existing dynamic DAT dispatch would be used.
There's no way we're gonna add support for legacy APIs in a new subsystems. We have enough problems with transitions of existing legacy APIs. > That approach is certainly applicable for OpenIB as well. > The key is recognizing the need for a transition plan. > Customers have DAT Providers installed now, they > cannot synchronize getting new DAT Providers from > their suppliers with a new Linux release. Then you customers have lost, period. Their fault for using badly designed APIs from industry consortia without any taste and a horrible corporate culture. Maybe they'll learn one day. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
