Christoph wrote, >On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 08:38:45AM -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote: >> actual code requirements makes no sense. If you >> can't come up with something that remains acceptable >> to the broader community of DAT users then you should >> refrain from using the "dat_" symbols and their already >> established meanings.
>That's exactly what I proposed. Please read the mail again. I think that your suggestion to s/DAT/RDMA makes sense, since this code is quickly becoming "the" RDMA transport independent interface for Linux, rather than trying to RNIC-PI unionize the IB core layer to make it support both IB and iWarp. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
