[openib-general] VAPI like API

[Sean Hefty]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 07:49:58 -0700
Roland Dreier <roland at topspin.com> wrote:

> There's no fundamental reason for the AL to have a per consumer
> structure right now, although we still need how to work out how to tie
> into the kernel device model.  By the way, I don't think the IB spec's
> concept of enumerating HCAs and then having the consumer open the HCAs
> it like works well in the kernel.  That's sort of like the old PCI
> driver model, and it doesn't work well in a dynamic world where
> devices can come and go.  We should rather think in terms of consumers
> registering with the AL and getting called back when devices appear or
> disappear (and I'm hoping the driver model can do this for us without
> having to create our own mechanism).

I'm fine with thinking this way.  But wouldn't the registration with AL result in a per client structure, or are you hoping that this would be hidden by the normal driver model?
 
> BTW, if we're going to have two completion handlers, it seems we might
> as well have the handler be per CQ (since it seems worse to me to have
> an index/pointer stored in struct ib_cq that's just used to look up
> the actual function pointer to call).

Thinking about this after sending the message, it seems that if you wanted to allow two handlers per client, then the struct ib_cq would need at least a u8 index field.  So, I'm tending to agree here.