> I would argue that this is because the libraries are so disjoint (that > librdmacm needs the deep internal knowledge it needs of libibverbs > indicates that maybe these two shouldn't be separate from each other for > example, or that maybe libibverbs should provide a unified connection > API to the user and internally use both librdmacm and libibcm on the > back end to work IP v. GUID connection setup). So, I think there is > significant room to improve the layout of the overall RDMA APIs and > doing that would address this particular issue and is probably the right > way to go. ... > That would address structures, but I think the API itself could use some > love and care, and that wouldn't be addressed by just the verbs > extension mechanism (and in fact if you rethink some of the exposed API, > it might drastically change how you might want to handle > extensions...who knows).
I agree with Doug. A merged library that can evolve the RDMA APIs with fewer compatibility constraints could be beneficial. I just think such an approach would require some thought and a lot of discussion. - Sean -- 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
