[ofa-general] Re: [ewg] Re: to be discussed at the developer conference

[Or Gerlitz]

On 10/30/07, Roland Dreier <rdreier at cisco.com> wrote:
>
> So with that said:
>
> > 1) the long time and endless threads related to the SA caching thing
> > need to be there. Sean - I saw that you prepare a session, correct?
> > will you presenting few possible designs?
>
> This is the perfect type of thing to try and settle.


I agree. Sean  - I don't see how a two years old open issue can be settled
down in 30m, I would say we need between 45m and upto two hours for that.


> > 2) as for IPoIB stateless offload - with Eli and Liran not planned to
> > be there. Dror - do you intend to actually present the actual ipoib /
> > core / drivers related design and implementation?
>
> Given that there really hasn't even been an attempt to discuss this on
> the mailing list, I'm not convinced it's worth trying to rush through
> explaining it.  I didn't think the patches were particularly hard to
> understand.


I think it would be good to have Dror explaining exactly what the HW knows
to do (the Sonoma slides were very short in details). Things I think we want
to discuss are:
(A) why to put a SW only optimization (LRO) in Infiniband/networking driver
(IPoIB)
(B) the IB ICRC based checksum offload patch which you called "silent data
corruption enhancement"
 etc

Dror - I don't see how 30m would be enough, I would say 45m and upto an hour

> 4) IPoIB connected mode UC support - Roland, can work on this start
> > once the no-SRQ design/code is agreed and committed to a branch at
> > your git?
>
> Is there a spec for attaching UC QPs to SRQs?  Other than that I think
> it's just a matter of someone caring enough to start working on it.


Here's the thing: with the SRQ/UC spec and implementation status being
unclear, once the no-SRQ code is in some repository, we can start code a
no-SRQ/UC implementation. As for open issues, pls see
http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2007-July/thread.html#37644where
in the second message on the thread MST states "The largest bit of
work would be to add connection liveness detection code to active side." and
then a whole discussion starts. If you tend to or just agree with Michael,
can be helpful if we discuss how to do that.

> 5) IB 4K MTU - in IPoIB and elsewhere in the IB stack, same here,
> > Roland, do you think a short session is needed
>
> No -- I don't know of any issues that need face-to-face discussion.


OK

> 6) the netdev network batching RFCs - Krishna, Shirley, will someone
> > from IBM can prepare a session to educate us on the matter and the
> > status?
>
> Why do we need to spend face-to-face time on this?


I thought that face-to-face meeting can include education,  specifically
when it is on interesting materials like this, which are about to effect the
ipoib driver.

Or.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/attachments/20071031/b6a3f530/attachment.html>