> From: Sean Hefty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 1:16 PM > > Rimmer, Todd wrote: > > We defined a response as: > > ((R bit set || TRAP_REPRESS) && ! SEND) || (Class=BM && SEND && > > AttributeModifier BM Response bit set) > > At this point, I'm leaning towards setting the upper bits of the TID for > all > MADs that are not responses. (This is for usermode only, so kernel agents > such > as the CM are left as is.)
I disagree, this implies a non-symmetric translation of the TID for SENDs (ie. it would be translated on the outbound SEND but not on any corresponding inbound SEND which might be a reply). The CM and BMA established the precedent for a SEND based protocol where TID was important and class specific information implied request/response status. I recommend only translating the TID on output MADs for messages we understand well enough to ensure the reverse translation would occur when the response arrived back to the sender (BMA is one such case, non-SEND messages is another). > > I think that a response can be identified as: > > Response bit set || trap repress || > (class=BM && attribute modifier response bit set) > > The last check is missing from current code, and the SEND checks listed > above > seem unnecessary. The test above for BM should include && Method==SEND. The BMA protocol also uses Get/Set and other methods, this response bit test is only applicable to the SEND method for the BMA. Todd Rimmer _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
