Robert> I think that your suggestion to s/DAT/RDMA makes sense,
Robert> since this code is quickly becoming "the" RDMA transport
Robert> independent interface for Linux, rather than trying to
Robert> RNIC-PI unionize the IB core layer to make it support both
Robert> IB and iWarp.
I disagree. It doesn't make sense to me for us to add an abstraction
layer on top of another abstraction layer -- let's just fix the first
abstraction layer.
If we follow the approach of changing the name of DAT to RDMA and then
putting it in the kernel, we end up with a stack that looks like:
upper layer protocol <-> RDMA midlayer <-> IB RDMA provider <-> IB midlayer
<-> IB low-level driver
Let's just evolve the IB midlayer so the picture can be more sensible:
upper layer protocol <-> RDMA midlayer <-> IB low-level driver
- R.
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
