[ofa-general] [PATCH RFC] RDMA: New Memory Extensions.

[Talpey, Thomas]

At 07:49 PM 5/14/2008, Roland Dreier wrote:
>also I wonder if it's clearer if we call this verb
>ib_alloc_fast_reg_mr().

I have to disagree. Calling anything "fast" simply invites a "faster"
thing to come along later. It's like calling something "new".

I say call it what it is - a work-request-based, alloc-phys-buffer-list,
bind-pages-to-list, to-be-widely-supported memory registration.
Obviously, the individual verbs need to be a bit more precise. :-)

Ralph - to answer your question who wants it, NFS/RDMA does, both
client and server. I talked about requirements that it matches closely
at Sonoma last month.

But Steve - aren't these capable of protecting memory at byte
granularity? The word "page" in some of the names implies otherwise.

Tom.