[openib-general][RFC]: CMA IB implementation

[Guy German]

Sean Hefty wrote:
> I don't object to the name, just combining the current functionality 
> that ib_at tries to provide into a single abstraction.  I think that the 
> disagreement is what functionality a core address translation module 
> should provide.
...
 > If other functionality from ib_at is needed,
 > I'm hoping that it can be build on top of this service.

Ok.

My personal taste is to have fewer modules but I can see the reason behind 
adding functionality gradually.

If this process will get the new (minimized ib_at) and cma into the kernel 
faster, hence allowing transport neutral ULP's (e.g. iSER) to be written over an 
upstream code, then I think it's a good course of action.

Guy