[openib-general][patch review] srp: fmr implementation,

[Talpey, Thomas]

I certainly won't shoot you - I agree. The other risk of the
current FMRs is that people will think the "F" means "Fast".

Tom.


At 08:32 PM 5/10/2006, Tom Tucker wrote:
>On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 08:53 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
>>     Thomas> I am planning to test this some more in the next few
>>     Thomas> weeks, but what I'd really like to see is an IBTA
>>     Thomas> 1.2-compliant implementation, and one that operated on
>>     Thomas> work queue entries (not synchronous verbs). Is that being
>>     Thomas> worked on?
>> 
>> No current hardware supports that as far as I know.  (Well, ipath
>> could fake it since they already implement all the verbs in software)
>> 
>
>I'm almost certain I'll be shot for saying this, but isn't there a
>danger of confusion with real FMRs when the HW shows up? If the benefit
>isn't there -- why do it if the application outcomes are almost
>certainly all bad?