> > - 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 ?
Previously we had agreed to use a new send_flag , IBV_SEND_EXTENDED, which would indicate the presence of the extended data structure. With new functionality, there may also be new extended opcodes, but this is not a requirement. -- 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
