> From: Sean Hefty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 9:46 AM > > Yaron Haviv wrote: > > we can spend time and discuss theories and intentions, at the end of the > > day an iWarp RNIC cannot just reside under IB-Verbs without major > > changes to the overall infrastructure. > > I don't disagree with having a common connection library that supports both > IB and iWarp, or that you could derive a solution from kDAPL. But based on > the proposed APIs that I've seen, I believe that an RNIC could reside under > IB verbs with minimal changes, and would likely be the best engineered > solution for including RNIC support in Linux.
Just for clarity, when you say verbs you exclude connection establishment/management, right? I think keeping the two distinct is important in this discussion, as it seems there is some confusion - some people refer to verbs as verbs + CM, others as just verbs. Here's my take from the discussions so far: - RNICs can probably be made to work under the IB verbs (with changes of course). - RNICs can probably not be made to work under the IB CM (not that I've seen this suggested). - 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