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.
>
>
