Sean Hefty wrote:
typedef void (*ib_cma_event_handler)(enum ib_cma_event event, void
*context, const void *private_data);
typedef void (*ib_cma_listen_handler)(void *cma_id, struct ib_device
*device, void *private_data, void *context);
I think we can merge these two handlers. We do not want to pass back
struct ib_device* to a caller. The device needs to be associated with
the cma_id up front.
The listen handler passes also the new cma_id. Do you think it is better to
merge them and pass null in this field in the "active side" case? (or maybe pass
the same cma_id back in the handler)...
int ib_cma_get_device(struct sockaddr *remote_address,
enum ib_qos qos, struct ib_device **device, u8 *port);
I don't believe that we can support this function and still work with
device removal.
I agree that this is an open issue, at the moment, that's why I did not
implement it yet. I will try to open a discussion on it, in a different thread.
int ib_cma_connect(struct ib_cma_conn *cma_conn, void **cma_id);
Creating the cma_id inside this call, rather than using a separate call
means that the user must be able to handle a connection request callback
before the cma_id is known. I.e. a callback can occur before this call
returns. (In fact, the entire connection could be established, data
transfered, and disconnected before this call returns.) It may be
easier to have a separate call to allocate the cma_id that records the
context and event handler.
That's a good point. I wanted to save the cma consumer the trouble of creating
and destroying cma_id's, and thought the cma can do it for him, but I agree that
this can be problematic. I will change that.
int ib_cma_listen(struct ib_device *device, struct sockaddr *address,
__be64 service_id, void *context,
ib_cma_listen_handler cm_listen_handler,
void **cma_id);
Same issue as above.
Point taken.
int ib_cma_destroy(void *cma_id);
Why not have this apply to both active and passive sides? Will this
interface support peer to peer connections? If so, then we may not want
to distinguish between active and passive at this level.
True. This will have to apply to the active side as well, after we add
ib_cma_create.
Thanks,
Guy
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
