[ofa-general] Re: [PATCH] uDAPL 2.0 mods to co-exist with uDAPL 1.2
ardavis at ichips.intel.com
Mon Sep 24 16:53:52 PDT 2007
James Lentini wrote:
> Comments below:
>> +# version-info current:revision:age
> What does this comment do?
just a comment regarding revisioning.
>> -# This example shows netdev name, enabling administrator to use same copy across cluster
>> +# Add examples for multiple interfaces and IPoIB HA fail over, and bonding
> The previous line is TODO, right? I'd suggest annotating it with that
> text to make it clear to users.
>> --- a/test/dtest/dtest.c
>> +++ b/test/dtest/dtest.c
>> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
>> #include <inttypes.h>
>> #ifndef DAPL_PROVIDER
>> -#define DAPL_PROVIDER "OpenIB-cma"
>> +#define DAPL_PROVIDER "OpenIB-2-cma"
> Should we update OpenIB to ofa? Obviously, this isn't necessary as
> part of this change
I didn't want to change the 1.2 names for compatibility reasons but for
2.0 we could move to ofa names for both libraries and provider names.
For example, libdaplcma.so becomes libdaplofa.so, OpenIB-cma becomes ofa.
For example dat.conf 2.0 entries would look like this:
ofa u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "ib0 0" ""
ofa-1 u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "ib1 0" ""
ofa-2 u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "ib2 0" ""
ofa-3 u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "ib3 0" ""
ofa-bond u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "bond0 0" ""
Is that what you had in mind?
More information about the general