[openib-general][RFC]: CMA IB implementation
mshefty at ichips.intel.com
Wed Sep 28 09:58:04 PDT 2005
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.
More information about the general