Quoting r. Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: CMA: compliancy issue? > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >>>From iSER point of view, this approach is fine, and it would allow for > >>some future flexibility to reject the REP. We prefer to implement it > >>only for 2.6.19, that is when 2.6.18-rc1 is out. > > > > > >Let us start by implementing this in SVN trunk. Sean, if you agree too, > >can you > >do this? > > I'm not sure that always exposing CONNECT_RESPONSE makes sense.
How about going back to my proposal then: continue exposing ESTABLISHED, change only the order of sending RTU - send it after calling the handler. > This is > slowly turning the RDMA CM into the IB CM. CONNECT_RESPONSE is really > there to support userspace, and is IB protocol specific. Is it really IB specific? What about TCP syn-ack? -- MST _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
