IB does optionally support send_with_invalidate as defined in IBTA 1.2 spec. OpenIB does not support this yet but this is a different matter. So this is bad analogy.
The better analogy is socket based CM. But I am still not clear what you are advocating: extensions, IB specific API or something else. Arkady Kanevsky email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Appliance Inc. phone: 781-768-5395 1601 Trapelo Rd. - Suite 16. Fax: 781-895-1195 Waltham, MA 02451 central phone: 781-768-5300 > -----Original Message----- > From: Larsen, Roy K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 2:46 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Arlin Davis; Hefty, Sean > Cc: Kanevsky, Arkady; Sean Hefty; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [dat-discussions] [openib-general] [RFC] > DAT2.0immediatedataproposal > > Caitlin Bestler wrote: > > > >Arlin Davis wrote: > >> Sean Hefty wrote: > >> > >>>> The requirement is to provide an API that supports RDMA > writes with > >>>> immediate data. A send that follows an RDMA write is > not immediate > >>>> data, and the API should not be constructed around > trying to make > >>>> it so. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> To be clear, I believe that write with immediate should > be part of > >>> the normal APIs, rather than an extension, but should be designed > >>> around those devices that provide it natively. > >>> > >>> > >> I totally agree. A standard RDMA write with immediate API > can be very > >> useful to RDMA applications based on the requirements (native > >> support) set forth in my earlier email. It is analogous to the new > >> dat_ep_post_send_with_invalidate() call; a call that supports a > >> native iWARP transport operation but provides no > provisions to help > >> other transports emulate. So, other transports simply return > >> NOT_SUPPORTED and add it natively in the future if it makes sense. > >> > >> -arlin > > > >What is proposed in a definition of > >'dat_ep_post_rdma_write_with_immediate' > >that can be implemented over iWARP using the sequence of > messages that > >were intended to support the same purpose (i.e., letting the > other side > >know that an RDMA Write transfer has been fully received). > > No, iWARP *CAN NOT* implement write immediate data any better > than IB can implement send with invalidate. Immediate data > *MUST* be indicated to the ULP unambiguously. Imposing an > algorithm on the application to infer immediate data arrival > is hack, pure and simple. An application is free to perform a > write/send if that is the semantic they want. Why does iWARP > get transport unique APIs but not IB? I find this attempt to > bastardize the IB semantic of immediate data a little curious. > > Roy > _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
