Quoting r. Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > >Sean, just to wrap it up, the API at the verbs layer will look > > > > > > > > >like the below, and then ULPs just put the value they want in > > > > > > > > >the CM and CM will pass it in to low level.
So this is our question, right? CM REQ and REP messages include the following field: --------------- 12.7.26 END-TO-END FLOW CONTROL Signifies whether the local CA actually implements End-to-End Flow Control (1), or instead always advertises .invalid credits.(0). See section 9.7.7.2 End-to-End (Message Level) Flow Control for more detail. --------------- Consider and implementation that advertises valid credits for connections, and always advertises invalid credits for other connections. This is compliant since the IB spec says (end-to-end (message level) flow control, Requester Behaviour): "Even a responder which does generate end-to-end credits may choose to send the 'invalid' code in the AETH" Is it compliant for CM implementations to set/clear the End-to-End Flow Control field accordingly, taking it to mean "whether the local CA actually implements End-to-End Flow Control (1), or instead always advertises 'invalid credits'(0)" *for the specific connection* -- Michael S. Tsirkin Staff Engineer, Mellanox Technologies _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
