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

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 17:09 +0200, Dotan Barak wrote:
> 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?

Fine with me (clearly it's not a showstopper :-) but these things so
often get lost and forgotten about...

-- Hal

> 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
> >>     
> >
> >   
>