>However, there's another problem with trying to lump address >translation and connection into a single "connect" call, and this >problem looks fundamental and fatal to me. The connect call takes a >QP pointer, but to create a QP the consumer needs to know which local >device to use. However, the consumer doesn't know which device to use >until the destination address has been resolved to a route, including >a local interface.
I agree that this is a fairly serious issue with the proposed API. I guess that I'd like to clarify what the operation of a connect call would do. Would it be responsible for modifying the QP? If so, could such a call also allocate the QP? Note that I'm not advocating either of these, just trying to determine what the behavior of the API would be. > Wait for connection requests and pass events to the consumer's > callback. I'm not sure if/home we want to support binding to > a particular IP address. The current IB CM in Linux doesn't > support binding a listen to a single device or port, and even > if it did it's not clear how to handle binding to one IP > address when a port has more than one IP. I don't think that it would be overly difficult to bind IB CM listen requests to a specific port or LID, or based on matching specific private data. - 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
