Sean Hefty wrote:
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.
ib_at works also with ipoib. The current way my cma implementation is using it,
for instance, does not use ATS at all.
The way I see it, ib_at is an address resolution module for Infiniband (that can
probably be improved) and the cma should be a generic connection manager for
rdma transports.
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
