Hi,
Are you are OK with :
1. Changing all non-exported routines in libibverbs to the new API.
All static functions can be changed immediately instead of going
the "deprecation" way.
2. Adding new duplicate API's for those API's that are exported to
other libraries.
Is this the right thing to do and acceptable ?
Thanks,
- KK
Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/10/2006 10:27:03 PM:
> James> Long term, I don't think it makes sense having two
> James> libraries with the exact same functionality, but different
> James> function names. Replacing ibv_ with rdma_ would be ideal,
> James> but disruptive to current users. Could you provide a
> James> backwards compatibility header (one that mapped each ibv_
> James> function to its equivalent rdma_ function)?
>
> Agreed. I think that the way forward is to provide a libibverbs
> release that has both rdma_ and ibv_ prefixed identifiers, and also
> provides both <infiniband/verbs.h> and <rdma/verbs.h> headers, etc.
> Then in the next major libibverbs release, the ibv_ versions of
> identifiers can be deprecated, and finally removed in the next major
> release (which could be renamed to librdmaverbs).
>
> Following that route is something that I've been meaning to work on,
> and I'd be happy to accept patches in that direction. But a big bang
> approach that breaks the world is not a good idea I don't think.
>
> - R.
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
