On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 11:50 -0800, Sean Hefty wrote: > 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.
... And in fact in the end there will be more. This separation allows one transport to change without impacting the other. > > 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. I like Sean's union approach better too. I think my original approach was aesthetically unpleasant work around (ugly hack). > > - 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 _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
