[openib-general] OpenIB and OpenRDMA: Convergence on common RDMAAPIs and ULPs for Linux

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 09:25:27AM -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
>The current OpenIB structure is, not surprisingly, tremendously
>IB-centric. Any attempt to implement an iWARP RNIC through
>them will have to go through several layers of obfuscation.
>
>States do not match. Error codes do not match. Completion
>Statuses do not match. There is a lot of information that
Statuses? stati
>does not translate to iWARP, and there is information that
>is missing.
such as.. ?
>
>RNIC-PI is at least an attempt at providing full control over
>both iWARP and IB while making as much common as
>possible.
Please point me to any infrastructure which allows any private peer to
steek at RNIC. At least at peer-level with a working driver which
includes a working ethtool -C infrastructure..
>
>I believe it is possible to define a verb set that is largely
>compatible with current OpenIB IB verbs and have the
>same transport neutrality that RNIC-PI has. But this will
>not be just poking around and tweaking one or two 
>elements in the OpenIB code.
[What is RNIC anyway? dict rnic returns just NIL, so what? Don't mean to
sound rude, but please provide at least a _little_ background for
newcomers, will you?]
>
>Is there a real willingness in OpenIB to make a transport
>neutral verb layer? Has anyone even *read* the RNIC-PI
Not being involved (heared of \"community\" before?), still yes.

Care to point (once again, as i'm buzzword agnostic) to the
relevant IEEE/whatever RFCs? TIA.
>for substance rather than "pure Linux" debating points?
>_______________________________________________
>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
>