[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Steve> Just curious, why don't all the verbs have this support? > > Steve> Maybe we should align all the verbs to support commands and > Steve> responses that allow provider-specific extensions? > > It seemed like over-engineering to me. I don't think we need > arbitrary data in every single verb. I could easily be wrong > but I think we'll very quickly converge on a set of verbs > that covers all HW. >
Allowing provider-specific data to be established when an object is *created* would definitely be adequate. That allows sharing info about provider-specific data structures. Once that information is shared, however, there should be no need to have private exchanges on each and every verb. The modifications being requested in a qp_modify are *not* provider-specific, merely the implementation data structures that the modifications will be made upon. But since the user-provider-verbs and kernel-provider-verbs already share that information there is nothing provider-specific that has to be communicated with a modify, query or delete verb. So the relevant set is create verbs for objects that are accessed on the fast path (and hence might have user-space created data structures): QP, SRQ and CQ. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
