Hi Sean,
Basically I think that we can definitely agree that if the cma can implement
ib_at intended functionality it should replace it - no need to have 2 modules
doing the same thing.
So the points that need to be considered are:
1. Caching
sean> generic SA caching module should be a part of ib_sa or exist separately.
What about specific path records caching with event driven invalidate logic ?
2. Partitioning
The cma should be able to use ib p_keys or tcp vlans according to the ipoib
interface ip address (subnet).
3. Qos
As Yaron H mentioned: ib_at model suggest taking by default the SL value from
the ipoib interface of that subnet which took it from the SA MCRecord
4. ATS registration
sean> I think that ATS registration/deregistration should be integrated with
sean> IPoIB.
I don't think there is a consensus around that, but I don't know all details.
5. retries
retries could be centralized in the ib_at approach.
6. ULP override
ULP's that are aware of the transport layer can override default values derived
from ipoib.
I think it is fair to say that if the cma can handle these issues, than ib_at is
no longer needed.
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
