[openib-general] Re: [PATCH] RFC Verbs: add support for transport specific verbs

[Sean Hefty]

Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Is it worth it to separate these things out?
> Even within IB lots of methods are optional - so why cant an iWarp device just
> avoid defining process_local_mad, and IB device avoid defining iWarp CM ops?

There are 7 additional function needed by iWarp.  How should these be added to 
ib_device?  Using process_mad as an example, we would add all 7 function 
prototypes directly to ib_device.

Tom's original proposal was to add an iWarp specific pointer to ib_device, with 
the functions declared as part of a structure referenced by that pointer.

I'd just like consistency on how transport specific functionality is handled, 
more than I have a specific preference at this point.

- Sean