Hi Sean, I still have a problem. Many enums have both IB specific and RDMA generic defines. Eg :
enum ibv_event_type { IBV_EVENT_CQ_ERR, IBV_EVENT_QP_FATAL, IBV_EVENT_QP_REQ_ERR, IBV_EVENT_QP_ACCESS_ERR, IBV_EVENT_COMM_EST, IBV_EVENT_SQ_DRAINED, IBV_EVENT_PATH_MIG, IBV_EVENT_PATH_MIG_ERR, IBV_EVENT_DEVICE_FATAL, IBV_EVENT_PORT_ACTIVE, IBV_EVENT_PORT_ERR, IBV_EVENT_LID_CHANGE, IBV_EVENT_PKEY_CHANGE, IBV_EVENT_SM_CHANGE, IBV_EVENT_SRQ_ERR, IBV_EVENT_SRQ_LIMIT_REACHED, IBV_EVENT_QP_LAST_WQE_REACHED, IBV_EVENT_CLIENT_REREGISTER }; It looks weird to keep some elements in the above enum as IBV_ and others as RDMA_. A lot of other enums have this same problem, eg ibv_qp_attr_mask, infact this is true of all enums/structures/defines that have some elements that are IB specific. Thanks, - KK Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/31/2006 10:47:20 PM: > > - "Path records are IB specific. Not sure we need to rename them" and "These > > changes look fine. We just need to decide if we want to change everything > > that's ibv_* to rdma_*, or keep IB specific names (path records, GIDs, PKeys, > > etc.) the same." > > > > I had indicated this in my "Information notes" in the [PATCH 0/6] : "IB > > specific routines are also converted to use RDMA generic API's for sake of > > uniformness (knowing that transport dependent names will be removed once all > > apps are converted)." > > > > The issue is between deciding to have either rd(ma)_v or ibv_ for IB specific > > structures. Currently there is no other transport other than IB that has > > these specific structures, but if that changes it might be better to keep the > > name transport agnostic. Another reason that I see at this time is to have > > uniform names which means that this library exports names using one prefix - > > this means that I do not have to care about the underlying transport type and > > I also do not have to remember that ibv_ is for [a, b, c, d] operations and > > rdma_ is for [e, f, g, h] operations. What do you feel ? > > If an application is looking at a path record, GID, PKey, etc. they they _are_ > caring about the underlying transport type and the fact that it is IB. An > application that wants to be transport neutral would just need to limit itself > to using rdma_* structures and APIs. > > If we take a larger view, I don't think we want transport neutral names for the > IB CM and IB MAD userspace APIs and structures. Things like path records, GIDs, > etc. are also used by those libraries. > > - Sean _______________________________________________ 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