No further comments from me. Ted, since the timer expired on this case, feel free to mark it closed.
Kais. On 10/20/08 16:00, Ted H. Kim wrote: > We will modify the case to say: > > IBTI_V3 is incompatible with other IBTI versions. > IBCI_V3 is incompatible with other IBCI versions. > > When IBTI changes, you have to recompile > all the in-kernel ULPs and the IBTF framework. > > When IBCI changes, you have to recompile > the IBTF framework and all the HCA drivers. > > -ted > > > > Kais Belgaied wrote: >> On 10/20/08 15:01, Ted H. Kim wrote: >>> >>> I am also not sure where this is leading. >>> Are you suggesting some specific change to the case? >> >> I'm not clear on the future compatibility expectations around the >> interface introduced by this case: >> >> I asked whether versions are incremental all the time and you >> answered yes >> ((capabs of V(n+1) includes all capabs of V(n)) >> I asked if some capabs can be used independently, you also said yes, >> which suggests >> (capabs of V(n+1)) don't necessarily have to include all capabs of >> V(n). Capabs are independent. >> >> The former means that an IBT client module written to V(n) is >> guaranteed to work unmodified on a framework+HCAs >> that evolved to V(n+1) or later. >> >> The latter means modules may break or may continue to work. No >> backward compatibility is guaranteed. >> >> Choose one semantic for the interface and clearly document it in the >> case. >> >> Kais. > >