[openib-general] putting in dead wood for DAPL and similarabomination
hch at lst.de
Tue Mar 1 15:46:44 PST 2005
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:38:50AM +0200, Yaron Haviv wrote:
> Even if your approach to DAPL was right you still have address
> translation service in SDP, and would need one for NFS/RDMA, and another
> one to iSER and another one for Lustre, etc' (even if they are coded
> directly to the verbs) Not to mention other protocols that access the SA
> (e.g. SRP, ..).
> So is your idea to duplicate that functionality for all the ULPs ?
> Would that make the code simpler and easier to maintain ?
Get the code out first and then see what can be shared and what not,
there's no way to find a sane API otherwise.
More information about the general