> - Remove the pointer to the ibv_send_wr_ext pointer from the wr union > in ibv_send_wr, and put the ibv_send_wr (less the duplicated data structures) > after the union, with the usual comp_mask flag to indicate what is supported. > This would be our #1 preference, because of the performance implications. > > - Remove the pointer to the ibv_send_wr_ext pointer from the wr union > in ibv_send_wr, and put pointers to relevant structs (task, qp (maybe should > be > named transport), and op, in the current example) after the union, with the > usual comp_mask flag to indicate what is supported. This would be our second > preference. > > What do you think here ?
How are you proposing adding a comp_mask and extending the structure size while remaining backward compatible? A new extended opcode? New send_flags? -- 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
