[openib-general] Some Missing Features from mthca/user MADacc ess

[Hal Rosenstock]

Hi Eitan,

On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 10:19, Eitan Zahavi wrote:
> I think the issue I raised with the InformInfo was a bad example.
> I reread the chapter. Actually, if we let two clients respond to a
> single incoming an-affiliated (unsolicited) MAD, we will break the
> assumption that there is only one response to a request. The
> SubnAdm.Report(Notice) has a response defined. 

There would also need to be some "coaelscing" to define when the
(single) response was sent back. The first issue would be how the
multiple clients see the Report.

> After reading the spec again, I think the idea was that if a client
> wants to register to a Report - it should use a special QP for that
> sake. The SA is providing filtering by whatever InformInfo field is
> available. The Report will be sent to the QP the
> SubnAdmin.Set(InformInfo) came from.

By special, I don't think you mean QP0/1 but a unique one per client.

> So let me revert what I have said. I think that having a single
> manager to each class is quite reasonable. Otherwise it is un-clear to
> me which client will be generating the response.

That would be another way (which I think would currently work with the
existing APIs) of doing this putting the all the burden on the SA. (more
Reports needing to be sent) saving this additional complexity at the end
node.

If this is acceptable to all, then I will consider this closed.

-- Hal