[ofa-general] ***SPAM*** uDAPL thread safety

[James Lentini]

That is correct. The full definition is given in the uDAPL spec. 
starting on page 47.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Dev wrote:

> Hi Arlin,
> 
>    Please correct me if I'm wrong ! Does that mean that the OFED uDAPL implementation is thread safe for those routines which the spec describes as thread safe but non threadsafe for those routines which the spec states as "provider dependent"?
> 
> cheers
> 
> /Dev
> 
> 
> Arlin Davis <ardavis at ichips.intel.com> wrote: Dev wrote:
> > HI,
> > Is the uDAPL provider in OFED 1.2 thread safe ? the dat.conf by default 
> > has an entry nonthreadsafe and the spec says for some of the routines 
> > thread safety depends on the provider.
> > 
> 
> The underlying OFA provider (openib_cma) and stack (rdma_cma,verbs) are 
> all thread safe but according to udat_config.h the reference 
> implementation (uDAT,uDAPL common code) is not.
> 
> James, can you speak to state of uDAT/uDAPL common code? Is this comment 
> still true?
> 
> -arlin
> 
> 
>        
> ---------------------------------
> Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.