On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > I would find calling it rdma_bind_device() confusing. > > why? I find it very much unconfusing I associate the word bind with bind(2). For that reason, rdma_bind_addr() is a good name because it is the CMA's analog for bind(2). Since it isn't related to bind(2), I find the name rdma_bind_device(dst_addr) confusing. > > In any event, I don't find the functionality very interesting. > > Hey, as i mentioned earlier in this thread, the interest came from a > ***possible*** enhancement to the open iscsi initiator design, now > being discussed, with which a transport (TCP/iSER/iSCSI offload > HW/etc) is asked to create its connection resources synchronously, , > not sure what is your interest in that. I was speaking from my experience with NFS/RDMA. If this functionality is necessary for implementing iSER, I would definitely support adding it. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
