[openib-general] CM private data

[Caitlin Bestler]

In that case, I'll point out that no application can rely upon
the final data being delivered because the first data can
easily beat the RTU. When that happens the IT-API
layer declares the connection established, and provides
no private data.

So being predictably unreliable for one implementation
stage is certainly something you can get away with.
Even when you add support it might be quite acceptable
to send the private data *only* on the first try, or to
require the IT-API layer to do the retries.

I was mostly responding to the suggestion that the
private data be eliminated from the API if nobody had
any use for it.

On 5/19/05, Sean Hefty <mshefty at ichips.intel.com> wrote:
> Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> > In any event, if no support is going to be provided for
> > private data on the second it_ep_accept at the verb
> > layer then that should be explicitly documented, and
> > I'd suggest sending a 'heads up' to the IT-API authors,
> 
> To clarify, I was only trying to determine when to implement this, not if.
> Based on the feedback, I will try to fix this as part of my next set of
> changes to the CM.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sean
>