[openib-general] comments on DAT registry in OpenIB

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:18:20AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
>     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.

Well, the plan was to take the parts of the DAT API that make sense
and put them into that generic RDMA layer.  DAT advocates claimed there
were such useful higherlevel abstractions, but the more I look at
the dat/dat-provider codebase I doubt there's a lot of them.