[ofw][patch][ND provider] Improving latency of ms-mpi

[Sean Hefty]

My point was that NetworkDirect is a published API whose definition is owned
entirely by Microsoft.  All implementations MUST adhere to the published ND API
specification, or they are not compliant.  It's not about legality, who
maintains a specific ND implementation, or whether a specific change is
considered an improvement over what's there.

We are free to change IBAL, WinVerbs, or other APIs because we own them.  The
only cost of doing so is breaking existing applications.  But for ND, our choice
is to be compliant or not.

The way I've gone about requesting changes to ND is to send comments to MS using
the links at the bottom of the ND documentation.  I expect that these messages
get routed directly to Fab, who rolls his eyes before hitting the delete key.
:)


>This change adds a new facility.
>Tzachi and me have brought the reasons.
>So it's good from engineer point view.
>I don't know whether we may do it from legal one.
>But we used to change Ibal API and ND sits in the same Open Source Tree
>with IBAL.
>Who is he maintainer of ND provider code ?
>I thought it's Fab.
>Fab, do you approve this API change ?
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sean Hefty [mailto:sean.hefty at intel.com]
>> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 9:05 PM
>> To: Leonid Keller; Fab Tillier; Tzachi Dar
>> Cc: ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
>> Subject: RE: [ofw][patch][ND provider] Improving latency of ms-mpi
>>
>> >This latter parameter should be IN OUT, because the driver takes its
>> >value as a hint.
>> >It really re-calculates it, trying to maximize in the limits of WQE
>> >size.
>>
>> Isn't this a MS defined API?  I don't believe we can change
>> the NDEndpoint APIs at all.
>>
>> - Sean
>>
>>