On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 15:23, Sean Hefty wrote: > Hal Rosenstock wrote: > >>If everyone is okay with breaking the ABI, then I would add send completion > >>notification to umad, and put the responsibility on callers not to generate > >>duplicate responses. > > > > Is this a better architectural solution ? > > Not sure.
Then it's likely not worth breaking the ABI which will cause more pain than it's worth. > It doesn't solve supporting DS RMPP, which requires maintaining state > between receiving a request and the generation of a response. > > > I'm not sure I totally understand what the new ABI would be and its > > impact on existing applications. Is there an example of what this might > > look like ? > > Currently, the only send MADs that are reported to the user are requests that > time out waiting for a response. We could probably change that to report all > send completions. Failed sends are reported using a status of timeout, with > the > MAD header copied to userspace. So the length of the MAD indicates if it was > a > send or receive. > > From an implementation stand point, this approach likely requires only minor > changes to the kernel code. But any userspace applications that send MADs > would > need to change to handle this. The list of application that do send MADs is > likely fairly small however. It's not so small. > If we wanted to be more restrictive on which applications would be affected, > we > could only generate send completions for response MADs. I think that would only pare it down a little. -- Hal > - Sean _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
