On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> Hi James, > > Sorry for the late response, my system was down and I just got it fixed. > > > Is there a benefit to having rdmav_create_qp() take generic > > parameters if the application needs to understand the type of QP (IB, > > iWARP, etc.) created and the transport specific communication manager > > calls that are needed to manipulate it? > > > > Would it make more sense if the QP create command was also transport > > specific? > > My opinion is that the create_qp taking generic parameters is > correct, only subsequent calls may need to use transport specific > calls/arguments. Infact rdma_create_qp uses the ibv_create_qp (now > changed to rdmav_create_qp) call internally. If you want to have a generic rdmav_create_qp() call, there needs to be programmatic way for the API consumer to determine what type of QP (iWARP vs. IB) was created. I don't see any way to do that in your patch: http://openib.org/pipermail/openib-general/2006-August/024605.html > PS : What is the opinion on this patchset ? I like the new approach you are taking (keeping 1 verbs library and adding rdmav_ symbol names). This change to transport neutral names is long overdue. When you finish with the userspace APIs, I hope you will update the kernel APIs as well. _______________________________________________ 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