[openib-general] DAPL for openib

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 17:43, Sean Hefty wrote:
> I don't think we're matching our terminology.  The MAD layer needs to know how to route, 
> and will operate based on class/version/method/etc., but doesn't need to know the specifics 
> for any given class.  I.e. it routes based on the values of given fields, not their meaning, 
> wherever possible.
> 
> The registration process is intended to provide the MAD layer a set of values 
> that it uses to route with.  The MAD layer shouldn't care what those values mean.  
> This is what I meant when I said that the MAD layer doesn't need to "know" which 
> methods are unsolicited.

Understood. What got me started on this was the following comment:
The method array is only needed if a client doesn't register to 
receive all unsolicited MADs for a specific class.

I think the above comment is in terms of the base routing requirement
rather than how we are doing this as there is no way for a client to not
specify the method array for a class due to the current definition of
ib_mad_reg_req.

> I *think* just RMPP, which doesn't use the response bit in all cases (or has the bit flipped). 
>  This is really an internal issue inside the MAD layer, but may affect the implementation of how 
> MAD routing is done.

I'm going to defer this and worry about it more when I get (back) to
RMPP which won't be for a little while yet.

-- Hal