On 2/28/06, Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sean Hefty wrote:
> > Add support for transport specific extensions to the ib_device verbs.
> > Relocate process_mad as an IB specific verb.
> >
> > This provides a mechanism to add iWarp specific functionality, such as
> > the iWarp CM calls, to ib_device.
>
> Third proposal from Fab:
>
> struct rdma_device {
> most everything
> };
>
> struct ib_device {
> struct rdma_device dev;
> IB specific operations;
> };
>
> Of course, this is a much larger change.
Perhaps, but it is probably the cleanest solution, allowing iWarp and
IB specific stuff to be totally independent with no header
interdependencies between the two transports. It also follows the
existing precendent of how struct device is the first member of struct
ib_device.
While it is a larger change, I don't think it's particularily more
complicated or more difficult - it's just bigger.
- Fab
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
