On 6/3/05, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Keep in mind that loading/unloading DAT Provider is *not* > > synonymous with loading/unloading drivers. In fact I believe > > the intent is to have a single provider that supports multiple > > devices. Such a provider would simply register itself when > > it was loaded. > > The current code looks like that, yes. But long term there should > be no separate DAT provider, but the functionality now covered by > kDAP should be converged into a general RDMA provider. >
This issue was discussed in OpenRDMA, and reached the same goal. Yes, in the long run there is no need for there to be both dynamic loading of DAT Providers and of Verb Providers. But that is a necessary interim transition. OpenRDMA discussed with the DAT Collaborative the idea of subsuming the responsibilities of the DAT Registry, so that the OpenRDMA directory could take the 'dat_xxx' calls directly. When the device dependent logic used a dynamically loaded verbs, those would be invoked directly. When the device dependent logic required a full DAT Provider (because it did not provide a recognized verbs interface) then the existing dynamic DAT dispatch would be used. That approach is certainly applicable for OpenIB as well. The key is recognizing the need for a transition plan. Customers have DAT Providers installed now, they cannot synchronize getting new DAT Providers from their suppliers with a new Linux release. This is especially true since OpenIB does not currently define a verbs interface that is suitable for iWARP vendors to use. So dat_ia_openv() needs to still support existing dat_registry logic and existing DAT_PROVIDERs, otherwise it is breaking existing code. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general