Quoting r. Tom Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: RE: rdma_cm.h: comment nits. > > On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 14:20 -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote: > > Tom Tucker wrote: > > > > > > > > So... all that said, I could in fact support rdma_reject on > > > an active side connection. But this would effectively reduce > > > to a QP --> ERROR and I doubt this matches the semantics > > > you're looking for. > > > > > > > > > > And you could send an RST. > > Yep, in fact that's what many RNIC's do when you move the QP to ERROR > instead of CLOSING. > > > There's just no way to send any user > > supplied private data. It's not just unreliable, it's guaranteed > > not to arrive. It's still a long way from the truly desired > > semantics, but the wire protocol just doesn't carry that info. > > > > Yeah, I think you're correct -- it would be a bogus "emulation".
I don't think any real ULP passes private data inside the Reject. Private data in response (SYN/ACK) is clearly portable, is it not? -- 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
