[openib-general] Re: [PATCH] CMA and iWARP
tom at opengridcomputing.com
Sat Jan 21 06:42:07 PST 2006
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 15:12 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> Sean> I haven't seen anyone object to merging the other changes.
> Sean> Roland, Hal - any opinion?
> I don't see much urgency in merging it now. When svn diverges from
> what's upstream in the kernel, it makes my life harder because I have
> to figure out which patches belong upstream and sometimes merge things
> by hand (when they hit the divergent regions).
The easy solution here is not to diverge. Unless the iWARP support
regresses IB functionality, it does no harm and creates a single
software core for both iWARP and IB developers to bring new drivers to
> Also I can't say I'm thrilled by adding
> > + struct iw_cm_verbs *iwcm;
I agree there are more elegant approaches, however, the design criteria
was to minimize changes to ib_verbs and the risk of IB functional
regression. I think this approach accomplishes that goal.
> to struct ib_device -- we still really haven't answered the issue of
> how iWARP connections interact with the host network stack, we've just
> pushed it off into low-level driver code where we can't see it.
The implementation not withstanding, we have answered the integration
- No transport level connection state sharing
- No migration of host established connections to RDMA mode.
RDMA connection management is integrated with the host stack to the same
degree that IB CM is integrated.
> Finally (a minor point), there's a lot of stuff like
> > + const void* pdata, u8 pdata_len)
> It's more idiomatic in the kernel to say "void *pdata" -- in other
> words, the space comes before the *, not after it.
> - R.
More information about the general