James Lentini wrote:
There doesn't seem to be much to iwarp_verbs.h. Assuming that the API
is complete, iWarp seems to use a subset of the structures defined by
IB. Why couldn't the current data structures just be renamed from
ib_blah to rdma_blah, with notes that some fields apply only to IB?
Some of the data structures already have fields that only apply for
specific completion types, work requests, QPs, etc. So, marking them
for IB only doesn't seem like that much of a stretch, and transport
neutral code would need to allocate the space anyway. This way we
would only need to change a few enums and move IB specific functions
to a new file.
A "generic" consumer would never need to fill in such fields, correct?
That would be correct. Fields that did not apply would simply be ignored.
For instance, the current verbs API does this for work requests and
completions; the structures contain fields that apply only to MADs.
If iwarp_verbs.h is complete, then it only extends 4 enums and encapsulates
3 data structures without extending them at all. This makes me suspect that
iwarp could just plug into the existing verbs API without widespread changes.
- Sean
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
