We have problem no matter which option we choose. The current Transport Level Requirement state:
There is a one-to-one correspondence between send operation on one Endpoint of the Connection and recv operations on the other Endpoint of the Connection. There is no correspondence between RDMA operations on one Endpoint of the Connection and recv or send data transfer operation on the other Endpoint of the Connection. Receive operations on a Connection must be completed in the order of posting of their corresponding sends. The Immediate data and Atomic ops violate these requirements including ordering rules. I had started updating these rules when I generated the first draft of the requirements. They are included in the enclosed pdf file. But they do not cover Atomic ops that also impact transport requirements. This chapter of the spec have not been changed since DAPL 1.0 and I am very concern with any changes to it. Arkady 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: Caitlin Bestler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 6:57 PM > To: Larsen, Roy K; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Arlin > Davis; Hefty, Sean > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [dat-discussions] [openib-general] [RFC] > DAT2.0immediatedataproposal > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > I was under the assumption that the DAT community defined > the APIs and > > semantics through an open process. Given that the IB write > immediate > > data facility does not break the implementation or semantics of the > > currently defined RDMA write facility, I see no reason the > DAPL spec > > couldn't be updated, through consensus, with the realities > of existing > > transport services. Nevertheless, I presume you'll have no > objection > > to implementing this useful service as a DAPL extension since the > > semantic rules for extensions haven't been define yet. > > > > Roy > > That is correct, because as an extension the user would not > expect normal semantics to still be guaranteed. > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dat-discussions/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
transport_req_020706.pdf
Description: transport_req_020706.pdf
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
