Sean Hefty wrote:
I don't object to the name, just combining the current functionality
that ib_at tries to provide into a single abstraction. I think that the
disagreement is what functionality a core address translation module
should provide.
...
> If other functionality from ib_at is needed,
> I'm hoping that it can be build on top of this service.
Ok.
My personal taste is to have fewer modules but I can see the reason behind
adding functionality gradually.
If this process will get the new (minimized ib_at) and cma into the kernel
faster, hence allowing transport neutral ULP's (e.g. iSER) to be written over an
upstream code, then I think it's a good course of action.
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
