[openib-general] comments on DAT registry in OpenIB

[Roland Dreier]

    Robert> I think that your suggestion to s/DAT/RDMA makes sense,
    Robert> since this code is quickly becoming "the" RDMA transport
    Robert> independent interface for Linux, rather than trying to
    Robert> RNIC-PI unionize the IB core layer to make it support both
    Robert> IB and iWarp.

I disagree.  It doesn't make sense to me for us to add an abstraction
layer on top of another abstraction layer -- let's just fix the first
abstraction layer.

If we follow the approach of changing the name of DAT to RDMA and then
putting it in the kernel, we end up with a stack that looks like:

    upper layer protocol <-> RDMA midlayer <-> IB RDMA provider <-> IB midlayer <-> IB low-level driver

Let's just evolve the IB midlayer so the picture can be more sensible:

    upper layer protocol <-> RDMA midlayer <-> IB low-level driver

 - R.