[openib-general] RE: [RFC] DAT 2.0 extension proposal

Wed Jan 18 14:23:00 PST 2006

A new proposal, addressing the following questions, is attached for
review.

-arlin

________________________________

From: Kanevsky, Arkady [mailto:Arkady.Kanevsky at netapp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:48 AM
To: Davis, Arlin R; Lentini, James
Cc: dat-discussions at yahoogroups.com; openib-general at openib.org
Subject: RE: [RFC] DAT 2.0 extension proposal

Arlin,

1. Does it mean that existing DAT providers will have to be modified so
they report

DAT_NOT_IMPLEMENTED for each extension?

2. Why is there DAT_INVALID in DAT_DTOS?

3. Do you want to use DAT_EXTENSION_DATA or DAT_EXT_DATA?

4. The proposed operations are operation on EP and they are DTOs.

Why not define DAT_DTO_EXT_OP instead of DAT_EXT_OP?

MY concern is that if these are not DTO then we have a new event stream
type

for "extensions" and we need to define rules for this event stream
including

ordering rules and interactions with other event streams, provider
attributes

for stream mixing and so on...

If we restrict extensions to DTO operation extension we avoid all these
issues

and simplify APIs. On the negative side these extension are restrictive.

5. Memory protection extension for atomic operations

6. error returns for extensions?

Arkady

Arkady Kanevsky                     email: arkady at netapp.com

Network Appliance Inc.             phone: 781-768-5395

1601 Trapelo Rd. - Suite 16.                  Fax: 781-895-1195

Waltham, MA 02451                   central phone: 781-768-5300

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/attachments/20060118/ce5d772c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DAT_Extensions_Rev2.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 84372 bytes
Desc: DAT_Extensions_Rev2.pdf
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/attachments/20060118/ce5d772c/attachment.obj>