[openib-general] Re: [PATCH] CMA and iWARP

[Tom Tucker]

On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 11:11 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
>     Tom> I agree there are more elegant approaches, however, the
>     Tom> design criteria was to minimize changes to ib_verbs and the
>     Tom> risk of IB functional regression. I think this approach
>     Tom> accomplishes that goal.
> 
> What would the more elegant approach be?

Phase III

> 
> I don't think minimizing changes is really the dimension to optimize
> on.  The luxury of Linux development is that we can choose the best
> solution, even if it means breaking the world (although of course the
> costs of churn in terms of risk and effort do need to be weighed).

The discussions from back at IDF advocated a phased approach. From my 
recollection:

Phase I   - iWARP device driver that mapped RNIC events and DTO to IB
            events and DTOs. Very small change required to core
            in the form of a new node type.  [done]

Phase II  - Transport independent connection management. This
            milestone was to begin merge with trunk since it required
            more significant core changes.  [done]

Phase III - Transport neutral naming, pluggable transports, etc...
            Sonoma is a great place to dig into these discussions.

Phases I and II are complete in the branch, were demonstrated at SC'05,
and have now been submitted as a patch to the trunk.

> 
>  - R.