[openib-general] Re: [Rdma-developers] Meeting(07/22) summary:OpenRDMA community development discussion

[Fab Tillier]

> From: Sean Hefty [mailto:mshefty at ichips.intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 9:46 AM
> 
> Yaron Haviv wrote:
> > we can spend time and discuss theories and intentions, at the end of the
> > day an iWarp RNIC cannot just reside under IB-Verbs without major
> > changes to the overall infrastructure.
> 
> I don't disagree with having a common connection library that supports both
> IB and iWarp, or that you could derive a solution from kDAPL.  But based on
> the proposed APIs that I've seen, I believe that an RNIC could reside under
> IB verbs with minimal changes, and would likely be the best engineered
> solution for including RNIC support in Linux.

Just for clarity, when you say verbs you exclude connection
establishment/management, right?

I think keeping the two distinct is important in this discussion, as it seems
there is some confusion - some people refer to verbs as verbs + CM, others as
just verbs.

Here's my take from the discussions so far:
- RNICs can probably be made to work under the IB verbs (with changes of
course).
- RNICs can probably not be made to work under the IB CM (not that I've seen
this suggested).

- Fab