Roland Dreier wrote: > Steve> Something similar to the mw_bind semantics should work to > Steve> make it more like the iwarp fast-register (i'm not sure > Steve> about IB 1.2). A function like ib_bind_mw() to post the > Steve> map WR, and then a new completion type to post the results > Steve> back to the CQ... > > Steve> Would we just change ib_map_phys_fmr() to do this or create > Steve> a new API function to preserve backwards compatibility? > > There are pretty big problems with trying to simulate the > "register memory through a work queue" operation on current > Mellanox HW (hence the current FMR hack). As hardware that > supports the work queue stuff becomes available, I think we > should just add new APIs (mostly just new work request > structures) and leave the old FMR interface for Mellanox HW. > > - R.
That strikes me as the correct approach. We will eventually have to add device attributes so that ULPs will know which (if any) of the FMR approaches are supported. And I agree that adding new work requests/completions is all that will be required at that later step (beyond the informational attributes). _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
