Guy German wrote:
I don't think this layer should replace ib_at. If you think there are things to be fixed in the ib_at, I suggest we fix them. I do believe that the original purpose of this generic cm was to serve ulps that don't want to be transport oriented (e.g. iSER).
Based on discussions from last month, the general agreement was to use CM private data in place of ATS. Once that's done, I don't see a need for ib_at. (Also, put simply, I don't believe that ATS can work.) I think that a combination of what Roland, including his original API design, and Yaron proposed is the right direction to go.
- 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
