[openib-general][PATCH][RFC]: CMA IB implementation

[Sean Hefty]

Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> That's certainly an acceptably low overhead for iWARP IHVs,
> provided there are applications that want this control and
> *not* also need even more IB-specific CM control. I still
> have the same skepticism I had for the IT-API's exposing
> of paths via a transport neutral API. Namely, is there 
> really any basis to select amongst multiple paths from
> transport neutral code? The same applies to caching of
> address translations on a transport neutral basis. Is
> it really possible to do in any way that makes sense?
> Wouldn't caching at a lower layer, with transport/device
> specific knowledge, make more sense?

I guess I view this API slightly differently than being just a transport neutral 
connection interface.  I also see it as a way to connect over IB using IP 
addresses, which today is only possible if using ib_at.  That is, the API could 
do both.

- Sean