[ofa-general] [PATCH] libibverbs: Added the man page verbs.7

[Dotan Barak]

I suggest to leave verbs.h as is for OFED 1.3 and discuss this issue for 
the next OFED distributions.
is it o.k. with you?

thanks
Dotan

Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 09:27 +0200, Dotan Barak wrote:
>   
>> Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 13:19 +0200, Dotan Barak wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> Sean Hefty wrote:
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>>>> The verbs also support iWarp devices and are not necessarily 
>>>>>> restricted to the
>>>>>> 1.2 IB spec definitions.  It might make sense to state that the IB
>>>>>> implementation is based on the 1.2 spec in an IB specific section, 
>>>>>> but keep the
>>>>>> general documentation transport neutral at this point.
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Sure, the page would be changed to reflect that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or.
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> Sorry, i didn't find the time to get to it until now.
>>>>
>>>> I changed the problematic sentence to:
>>>> "This library is an implementation of the verbs based on the Infiniband 
>>>> specification volume 1.2 chapter 11."
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>                 ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>                 volume 1
>>>
>>> Also, should this refer to IBA 1.2.1 rather than 1.2 (if that was what
>>> was intended by the 1.2 reference) ?
>>>   
>>>       
>> I must admit that i didn't have a chance to check IB spec 1.2.1 BUT
>> 1) Many of the features are implemented by the IB devices, and i don't 
>> know if all of them
>>      behave according to spec 1.2.1
>>     
>
> Aren't any of those changes optional so I'm not sure I see the issue
> here ?
>
>   
>> 2) Spec 1.2 introduced new features (such as SRQ and some more) which 
>> didn't exist in
>>     spec 1.1, so i wanted to make to make sure that they are supported. 
>>     
>
> Sure; there are spec changes going forward but the spec is backward
> compatible (and new features are optional).
>
>   
>> (as much as i know,
>>     most of the users don't have a copy of the IB spec )
>>     
>
> The spec has been publically available for quite a while now (not just
> available to IBTA members).
>
>   
>> 3) If one month from now, spec 1.2.2 will be published; should we update 
>> this file?
>>     
>
> That's actually a larger question affecting more than this just this
> file.
>
> One approach would be to indicate the latest spec supported at the time
> of release.
>
>   
>> I think that sentence is good (spec 1.2) for now...
>>     
>
> I'm not sure about its "goodness". In this particular place, there may
> not be much harm either way but in others it is misleading and
> inaccurate.
>
>   
>> Do you think that we should remove the spec version completely?
>> (i don't think that it is wise to update the version unless there is a 
>> good reason for it ..)
>>     
>
> That gets rid of the overhead of dealing with maintaining the spec
> version. However, eliminating the spec version leaves the version open
> which is not a good thing in all cases.
>
> -- Hal
>
>   
>> thanks
>> Dotan
>>     
>
>