Sean Hefty wrote: > 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. So you are fine with the CMA consumer being aware to the RDMA transport up to the extent of having a per transport reject codes handler? >> 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. This sounds much better. 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