<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 12:13 PM 10/10/2005, Fab Tillier wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">> From: Sean Hefty
[<a href="mailto:mshefty@ichips.intel.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:mshefty@ichips.intel.com</a>]<br>
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:16 AM<br>
> <br>
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:<br>
> > Maybe rdma_connection (these things encapsulate connectin
state)?<br>
> > Or, rdma_sock or rdma_socket, since people are used to the fact
that<br>
> > connections are sockets?<br>
> <br>
> Any objection to rdma_socket?<br><br>
I don't like rdma_socket, since you can't actually perform any I/O
operations on<br>
the rdma_socket, unlike normal sockets. We're dealing only with the
connection<br>
part of the problem, and the name should reflect that. So
rdma_connection,<br>
rdma_conn, or rdma_cid seem more appropriate.</blockquote><br>
Naming should not involve sockets as that is part of existing
standards. There are also the new standard Sockets extension API
available today that might be extended sometime in the future to include
explicit RDMA support should people decide to bypass SDP and go straight
to a more robust API definition. The Sockets Extensions already
comprehend explicit memory management, async comms, etc. making a
significant improvement over the existing sync Sockets as well as going
further in solving areas like memory management beyond what was done in
Winsocks.<br><br>
Mike</font></body>
</html>