On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Roland Dreier wrote:
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
I'd note that the RDMA midlayer above is very thin (plus or minus 1000 lines for headers and source files).
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
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
