[openib-general] Re: RFC: e2e credits

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 12:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Quoting r. Hal Rosenstock <halr at voltaire.com>:
> > Subject: Re: RFC: e2e credits
> > 
> > On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 11:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Quoting r. Hal Rosenstock <halr at voltaire.com>:
> > > > Subject: Re: RFC: e2e credits
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 11:13, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > Quoting r. Hal Rosenstock <halr at voltaire.com>:
> > > > > > > >Sean, just to wrap it up, the API at the verbs layer will look like the
> > > > > > > >below, and then ULPs just put the value they want in the CM and CM will
> > > > > > > >pass it in to low level.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I'm fine with this, but I do think that it's a minor spec
> > > > > > > violation/enhancement, so I'd like to get agreement with Hal, Roland, and
> > > > > > > other HCA vendors about this change.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I too think this is a (minor) spec change. I recommended checking with
> > > > > > the CM authors on it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why are you saying its a spec change? Because now the same HCA might return
> > > > > different values at different times?
> > > > 
> > > > I think that's a creative interpretation of what the spec says (or
> > > > perhaps doesn't say) but that's just my $0.02 worth.
> > > 
> > > OK, could you check this with the relevant people please?
> > 
> > Is there a reason you can't ? Mellanox has people who participate in the
> > relevant IBTA WGs.
> 
> Yes but it's weekend here :)
> BTW, which WG would that be?

SWG