From: Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:01:07 -0700
> > The hack to use a socket and bind it to claim the port was just for > > demostrating the idea. The correct solution, IMO, is to enhance the > > core low level 4-tuple allocation services to be more generic (eg: not > > be tied to a struct sock). Then the host tcp stack and the host rdma > > stack can allocate TCP/iWARP ports/4tuples from this common exported > > service and share the port space. This allocation service could also be > > used by other deep adapters like iscsi adapters if needed. > > Since iWarp runs on top of TCP, the port space is really the same. > FWIW, I agree that this proposal is the correct solution to support iWarp. But you can be sure it's not going to happen, sorry. It would mean that we'd need to export the entire TCP socket table so then when iWARP connections are created you can search to make sure there is not an existing full 4-tuple that is the same. It is not just about local TCP ports. iWARP needs to live in it's seperate little container and not contaminate the rest of the networking, this is the deal. Any suggested such change which breaks that deal will be NACK'd by all of the core networking developers. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
