[openib-general] [PATCH][iWARP] Added provider CM verbsandqueryprovider methods

[Steve Wise]

So all three current iWARP implementations can work with our proposed 
connection setup model.  That's three different HW drivers.

Can we agree to begin with this approach and get all the other iwarp vs 
ib issues flushed out by getting at least one iwarp device working with 
the openib design?  IE:  I'm asking that we push in our connection setup 
patch in the iwarp branch, then work from that and continue this 
evolution.

Roland?  Whatchathink?


Stevo.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Sharp" <bsharp at NetEffect.com>
To: "Caitlin Bestler" <caitlinb at broadcom.com>; 
<openib-general at openib.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:43 PM
Subject: RE: [openib-general] [PATCH][iWARP] Added provider CM 
verbsandqueryprovider methods


>From NetEffect's perspective, the per device approach is simple to
implement and I do not see it as an Ammasso specific approach.  As 
Caitlin
described, existing code needs to be reorganized but this aspect of our 
port
is not a major effort.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: openib-general-bounces at openib.org on behalf of Caitlin Bestler
Sent: Thu 8/25/2005 6:35 PM
To: openib-general at openib.org
Cc:
Subject: RE: [openib-general] [PATCH][iWARP] Added provider CM 
verbsandquery provider methods


> -----Original Message-----
> From: openib-general-bounces at openib.org
> [mailto:openib-general-bounces at openib.org] On Behalf Of Roland Dreier
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 4:19 PM
> To: Steve Wise
> Cc: openib-general at openib.org
> Subject: Re: [openib-general] [PATCH][iWARP] Added provider
> CM verbs andquery provider methods
>
>     Steve> Would you rather we put this in a CM device struct of some
>     Steve> sort?  And have rnic devices export a CM device that has
>     Steve> these sorts of methods?  To me that's basically the same as
>     Steve> adding it to the struct ib_device.
>
> I think if we really need these new methods, then they might
> as well be in the rdma_device structure.
>
>     Steve> Well, i haven't seen any other iwarp device at this detail
>     Steve> (i only know of three iwarp devices in existance), so i
>     Steve> cannot tell you.  Perhaps the other vendors can respond.
>
> I think it's important for us to understand whether this is
> an Amasso-specific interface or something that will work in
> the general case.  Perhaps someone from Broadcom and/or
> NetEffect (or some other
> vendor) can comment?
>

The per-device connection methods proposed by Ammasso are definitely
implementable for every iWARP RNIC that I am aware of. It does move
some code around from where we have it currently, so we're not ready
to release our versions yet. But that's because things take time, not
because we think there's anything wrong with the interface.

This interface needs to be complemented by the existing IB-specific
interface and by an eventual TCP-specific interface that is compatible
with the DAT Socket Service Point and/or IT-API's socket convert 
options.
That interface would also deal with interoperability with pre-IETF MPA.
But only a handful of applications need those optinons, the DAT-style
interface accomodates the vast majority of applications that we are
aware of.



Caitlin Bestler
Principal Software Scientist
Broadcom
caitlinb at broadcom.com



_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
openib-general at openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general

To unsubscribe, please visit 
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general




_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
openib-general at openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general

To unsubscribe, please visit 
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general