[openib-general] Re: [PATCH] RFC Verbs: add support for transport specific verbs
Tom Tucker
tom at opengridcomputing.com
Tue Feb 28 12:48:40 PST 2006
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 11:50 -0800, Sean Hefty wrote:
> 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.
... And in fact in the end there will be more. This separation allows
one transport to change without impacting the other.
>
> 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.
I like Sean's union approach better too. I think my original approach
was aesthetically unpleasant work around (ugly hack).
>
> - Sean
> _______________________________________________
> openib-general mailing list
> openib-general at openib.org
> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
>
> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
More information about the general
mailing list