> From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 1:38 PM > > On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 16:33, Eitan Zahavi wrote: > > > > > > Have you looked at the umad and mad libraries ? These are not IBAL. > > [EZ] Yes I know. This is why they do not work on Windows IBAL. > > Is it a requirement for them to work on Windows IBAL ?
The OpenIB Windows stack is IBAL. > There is no reason the MAD and UMAD libraries couldn't be ported to > Windows. Is there any reason to port these when the Windows OpenIB stack already has fully implemented and functioning user-mode MAD client support? What's the value in porting the API? Is it portable with no changes so applications using the umad interface don't have to change between Linux and Windows? I'm guessing the diagnostics will have to change regardless of what MAD API they interface to unless they interface to an abstraction layer that hides OS differences. If the diagnostics are going to change, why not just change them to interface directly to the native MAD API for the target platform? - 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
