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

[Sean Hefty]

Guy German wrote:
> Sean Hefty wrote:
> 
>> I think that there will still be a need for a separate address 
>> translation module(s)
> 
> I don't understand. You think there should be an address translation 
> module, but you object to the *name* ib_at ? (ib_at stands for 
> "infiniband address translation")

I don't object to the name, just combining the current functionality that ib_at 
tries to provide into a single abstraction.  I think that the disagreement is 
what functionality a core address translation module should provide.

> I suggested before that if ib_at should be fixed lets fix it. If API 
> should be improved or other functionality should be added (or removed) 
> why not do it in the existing ib_at ?

My preference/current course of action is to extract and improve the ARP based 
address translation code from ib_at.  My guess is that the ARP based address 
translation code will be enough functionality to stand alone in its own module. 
  If other functionality from ib_at is needed, I'm hoping that it can be build 
on top of this service.

- Sean