On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 05:41:53PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: > If from other reasons, people want the rdma-cm to support AF_IB and/or > PS_IB, we can do that as well, but why force doing that behind the cover > each time ACM is used?!
My view is that ultimately ACM has at best a niche application. The various limitations with the approach are not suitable for many cases. I also don't think it would be the final word on this subject. So why not have a more general, flexible approach? Isolating ACM from librdmacm by using AF_IB is a good idea, it keeps them seperate and lets ACM and future go where ever. I hope Sean can make it work with the rdma_getddrinfo idea, that would completely seperate ACM and librdmacm. Attempting to bake it into AF_INET means that librdmacm, possibly the kernel and maybe even the apps need to be contaminated with ACM specific code, and that just doesn't seem desirable to me. What happens when someone invents BCM or CCM? More mess. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
