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

[Sean Hefty]

Guy German wrote:
> I don't think this layer should replace ib_at. If you think there are 
> things to be fixed in the ib_at, I suggest we fix them. I do believe 
> that the original purpose of this generic cm was to serve ulps that 
> don't want to be transport oriented (e.g. iSER).

Based on discussions from last month, the general agreement was to use CM 
private data in place of ATS.  Once that's done, I don't see a need for ib_at. 
(Also, put simply, I don't believe that ATS can work.)  I think that a 
combination of what Roland, including his original API design, and Yaron 
proposed is the right direction to go.

- Sean