Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Is it worth it to separate these things out? Even within IB lots of methods are optional - so why cant an iWarp device just avoid defining process_local_mad, and IB device avoid defining iWarp CM ops?
There are 7 additional function needed by iWarp. How should these be added to ib_device? Using process_mad as an example, we would add all 7 function prototypes directly to ib_device.
Tom's original proposal was to add an iWarp specific pointer to ib_device, with the functions declared as part of a structure referenced by that pointer.
I'd just like consistency on how transport specific functionality is handled, more than I have a specific preference at this point.
- 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
