[openib-general] Re: Re: [PATCH] RFC Verbs: add support for transport specific verbs

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. Sean Hefty <mshefty at ichips.intel.com>:
> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] RFC Verbs: add support for transport specific verbs
> 
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >Is it worth it to separate these things out?
> >Even within IB lots of methods are optional - so why cant an iWarp device 
> >just
> >avoid defining process_local_mad, and IB device avoid defining iWarp CM 
> >ops?
> 
> There are 7 additional function needed by iWarp.  How should these be added 
> to ib_device?  Using process_mad as an example, we would add all 7 function 
> prototypes directly to ib_device.

Right. Thats what I had in mind. So they are NULL for IB devices and thats that
.

-- 
Michael S. Tsirkin
Staff Engineer, Mellanox Technologies