[ewg] Re: [OMPI devel] [ofa-general] Re: OMPI over ofed udapl - bugs opened

[Steve Wise]

On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 17:46 -0700, Andrew Friedley wrote:
> > Therefore, the only truly safe thing for an iWARP btl to do (or a
> > udapl btl since that is also an iWARP btl) is to have the active
> > layer send an MPI Layer "nop" of some kind immediately after 
> > establishing the connection if there is nothing else to send.
> 
> This is fine for an iWARP/RDMACM/whatever BTL (or anything else that 
> uses the OFA verbs interface(s)), but my argument is that uDAPL is NOT 
> specifically there to support just iWARP (though it may include it), and 
> that OFED's uDAPL should be adjusted to handle this.  Again, uDAPL is a 
> network *independent* abstraction, so requiring network-dependent 
> behavior from the uDAPL consumer is wrong.
> 
> A related question -- how does this 'connection initiator must send 
> first' requirement relate to UD?
> 

It doesn't.  UD isn't supported in IWARP.