Quoting r. Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: RE: RDMA CM and loopback addresses > > >Hmm. This all sounds very reasonable, but if resolve_addr is > >available, why not get rid of bind()? Do not provide any way > >in the API for a non-listening socket to get the bound hardware device > >without providing both source and dest. > > This makes sense, and was the way the initial implementation was coded. > > Support for bind() on the active side was added to support DAPL. In fact, > calling bind() doesn't even alleviate the need to call resolve_addr(). > > I will see if there's find a reasonable way to support DAPL without binding > early to a device. > > - Sean
SDP also needs this I think. -- 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
