[openib-general] Re: CMA: compliancy issue?

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

Quoting r. Sean Hefty <mshefty at ichips.intel.com>:
> Subject: Re: CMA: compliancy issue?
> 
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>From iSER point of view, this approach is fine, and it would allow for
> >>some future flexibility to reject the REP. We prefer to implement it
> >>only for 2.6.19, that is when 2.6.18-rc1 is out.
> >
> >
> >Let us start by implementing this in SVN trunk. Sean, if you agree too, 
> >can you
> >do this?
> 
> I'm not sure that always exposing CONNECT_RESPONSE makes sense.

How about going back to my proposal then: continue exposing
ESTABLISHED, change only the order of sending RTU - send it after calling
the handler.

> This is 
> slowly turning the RDMA CM into the IB CM.  CONNECT_RESPONSE is really 
> there to support userspace, and is IB protocol specific.

Is it really IB specific?  What about TCP syn-ack?

-- 
MST