Or Gerlitz wrote: > Conceptually, do we agree that it would be better not to expose IB > reject code to the CMA consumers? that is in the spirit of the CMA being > a framework for doing connection management in RDMA transport > independent fashion, etc.
My concern is that I do not want to mask the real reason for the reject in a way that prevents the user from understanding what's needed to establish the connection. A different way to view this is that the event provides the generic information, and the status detailed. > The CMA does return **errno** values on the status field for some events > (eg with UNREACHABLE event as of REQ/REP timeout, as in the case that > started this thread...), so we need to decide a clearer approach here. We can provide two status values with an event, one that maps to an errno, and another that maps to a transport specific reason. - 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