[openib-general] [PATCHv2][RFC] kDAPL: use cm timers instead of own

[Talpey, Thomas]

At 08:41 AM 6/14/2005, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>The current implementation is:
>1. address resolution phase for some amount of time 
>followed by:
>2. dapl_ib_connect timeout * 5 (since there are 4 retries)
>
>A better algorithm would be to divide down the timeout by some number of
>retries (which would vary based on the timeout requested) and have the
>number of retries vary based on the total timeout requested.

Why is address resolution exempt from the timeout? If the caller
wants a timeout, it should be independent of low-level link resolution.
Socket connect()s don't care about ARP, for example.

I don't like the idea of retry counts because there is no deterministic
length of time that they will take. Exponential backoff could drive
even a few retries to many minutes. Of course, if an IB provider
can guarantee that N retries will be performed in M seconds, then
okay, but not in general.

Tom.