[ofw] partial review of mlx4 branch

[Smith, Stan]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Hefty, Sean
>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:11 AM
>To: Fab Tillier; Leonid Keller; ofw_list
>Subject: Re: [ofw] partial review of mlx4 branch
>
>> I'll work on this and submit a patch at some point.  I have something
>> rudimentary prototyped but need to polish it up.  How strongly do people feel
>> about manipulating path records in user-mode? My current direction has the
>> paths entirely managed in the kernel (including caching), since path records
>> are IB-specific and don't apply to RoCE or iWARP (yes, I'm still hoping some
>> iWARP vendors join the project, <sigh>).
>
>You're trying to add a protection against access to path records that really doesn't matter.  As long as users can allocate and manually
>transition QP states, where path records are kept doesn't matter.  A privileged user space service would be a better place to cache and
>manage path records given large fabrics and the complexities of trying to handle QoS requirements.

How would a kernel driver establish a trusted communications link with a user-space path record service?
What is the failover position for the case when the user-space PR agent is unavailable?
Would a caching user-space PR agent be accessible from other nodes?

>
>- Sean
>_______________________________________________
>ofw mailing list
>ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
>http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw