I have been following this and the other thread on CMA. There appears to be some opinions to removing the ib_at module and introduce CMA.
Is that correct?
True, CMA will need some form of address translation. Can we not use some incarnation of ib_at for that? I realize that ib_at has a net_device
refcnt problem. Is this refcnt problem a usage issue rather than just a bug in the implementation? How would CMA solve the refcnt issue?
What am I missing?
Pradeep
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/30/2005 07:27:32 AM:
> On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 00:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Why does AT need to keep netdev reference for longer?
>
> I don't think it really does and could be changed. I think (but am not
> sure) it was a convenience of implementation to try to make the netdev
> reference counting simpler.
>
> It only needs to hold the netdev for sending the ARP (like SDP).
>
> It needs the underlying ib_device and port for ATS and path queries as
> well as reregistration if the interface address changes and
> deregistration if the IPoIB interface is removed. (SDP doesn't need to
> worry about these aspects (only path queries).)
>
> -- Hal
>
> _______________________________________________
> openib-general mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>
> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
