[openib-general] OpenIB and OpenRDMA: Convergence on common RDMAAPIs and ULPs for Linux

[Sean Hefty]

Roland Dreier wrote:
>     Bob> There is already a RDMA device independent API being
>     Bob> developed for the kernel by people on this list. It is
>     Bob> starting with the kDAPL code base, which was designed to
>     Bob> support both IBA and iWarp devices.
> 
> I believe kDAPL-based layers are an OK short-term solution, but I
> don't think anything like this should be proposed for merging in the
> Linus kernel.  If we need another abstraction layer on top of our
> existing abstraction layer, that just says to me that we should fix
> the current abstraction layer.

My personal view is that any higher level abstractions could combine common 
functionality or simplify the interface, possibly with a loss of lower level 
control.  For example, an interface could be created that allowed the user 
to operate with more abstract addressing, hiding SA query and CM 
interactions.  Such an interface may not be needed yet, but if there were 
multiple RDMA transports, it could be valuable.  However, I do not think 
this necessarily translates into the need to abstract concepts like PDs, 
QPs, and CQs.

- Sean