[openib-general] Re: rdma_cm.h: comment nits.

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. Tom Tucker <tom at opengridcomputing.com>:
> Subject: RE: rdma_cm.h: comment nits.
> 
> On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 14:20 -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> > Tom Tucker wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > So... all that said, I could in fact support rdma_reject on
> > > an active side connection. But this would effectively reduce
> > > to a QP --> ERROR and I doubt this matches the semantics
> > > you're looking for.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > And you could send an RST. 
> 
> Yep, in fact that's what many RNIC's do when you move the QP to ERROR
> instead of CLOSING. 
> 
> > There's just no way to send any user
> > supplied private data. It's not just unreliable, it's guaranteed
> > not to arrive. It's still a long way from the truly desired
> > semantics, but the wire protocol just doesn't carry that info.
> > 
> 
> Yeah, I think you're correct -- it would be a bogus "emulation".

I don't think any real ULP passes private data inside the Reject.

Private data in response (SYN/ACK) is clearly portable, is it not?

-- 
MST