[openib-general] Re: [PATCH] [CMA] support for SDP + standard protocol

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting Dan Bar Dov <bardov at gmail.com>:
> I understand that SDP needs address translation services as well as
> its own private data.

SDP is an exception simply because it was there first.

> However, I think it could be implemented using
> optional API functions that allow the ULP to modify the private data
> per its need, rather than adding ULP knowledge into CMA.

I agree this would also work, but I like the existing API better.
Hopefully, the simple way in which its being implemented will help drive new ULP
authors to follow the uniform spec rather than override it :)

> As example, if ISER spec will be modified, or some new ULP
> implemented, that needed their own private data, we'll need to modify
> CMA again, as well as creating a dependency between CMA versions and
> ULPs.

What do you mean by "CMA versions"?

-- 
MST