> From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 12:45 PM > > On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 14:58, Eitan Zahavi wrote: > > [EZ] There is no need to port UMAD to windows!!! We already have OSM > > Vendor ported to it. It works on top of the existing IBAL API > > (actually this is the first OSM Vendor that was ever built). > > There is if the OpenIB diagnostics and other applications in the Linux > environment which are not on top of the "OSM" vendor layer are to work > in the Windows environment. That was what started this whole thread.
The discussion was about porting the diagnostics to the Windows environment. Whether that's done by porting umad and the MAD libraries to run on top of the IBAL MAD services APIs or by porting the diagnostics to interface directly to IBAL hasn't been settled on. I suppose it will be up to whoever ports the diagnostics. If I was porting them, I'd make them interface to the lowest level available (just like they do in Linux). If Eitan was porting them, he'd have them run over the OSM vendor layer. If you were porting them, you'd port umad. How is porting umad any different than using the OSM vendor layer? umad is the lowest level API in Linux, but not in Windows. So either the diagnostics interface to the lowest level layer (umad for Linux, IBAL for Windows), or the diagnostics interface to some higher abstraction layer. If a higher abstraction layer, why not use the existing OSM vendor layer and skip porting umad to Windows all together? - Fab _______________________________________________ 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