On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 10:11 -0700, Sean Hefty wrote: > >I think the current CMA could probably be better. > > Can you please clarify what you would change to the CMA API or implementation? > I would rather get changes in sooner, rather than waiting until it has been > pushed upstream.
At first blush, the API looks good to me. The kinds of changes I was pondering were related to hiding some of the routing issues. For example, if the app. doesn't bind the rdma_cm_id prior to calling rdma_connect, the code will lookup and use the default route instead of returning -EINVAL. These kinds of things allows the app to use bind if they want control, or not use bind (and simplify the code) if they are happy to take the defaults. I was planning to do a patch and submit it for review, but if you'd prefer talking through it -- that's fine two. > And to be clear, the current interface is not attempting to abstract QPs, CQs, > or other hardware resources. > Absolutely. > - 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
