Sean Hefty wrote: > Just to make sure, here's my summary of the discussions so far. Anyone who > disagrees can jump in.
> There was discussion on this being 2.6.18 material. The consensus is to let > it > get wider testing in svn first. The fix / feature isn't critical enough to > push > upstream immediately, so waiting until 2.6.19 seems reasonable. > There was also discussion on whether the CM should track local QPNs on both > the > active and passive sides, or just the passive side. To properly track > timewait > and eventually handle path migration, tracking on both sides is needed, which > is > what the patch does. > Or asked about removing the ib_cm_establish() call from the API. It was left > as > part of the API to avoid breaking the ABI, and still allow users to force > connection establishment in case they poll a receive WC before the COMM_EST > event occurs. > There was also some side discussion about the COMM_EST event in general and > trying to respond to request messages while the QP is still in the RTR state. > A > discussion on possible changes to the spec spawned off from this... Sean, As all the points you mention here were agreed: + not 2.6.19 material to allow more testing + tracking local QPNs on both sides to allow for later usage in APM + leave ib_cm_establish in place And the only open issue over which there is not yet a consensus is the **side** discussion, I suggest you move forward with committing the patch and once the side discussion is done the next step (which i think is NO-OP per the IB stack, that is let the ULP handle this) would be implemented. Or. _______________________________________________ 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
