Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:25:44PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Exactly. Please don't even try to put brand names (especially if
they're as stupid as this) in. We don't call our wireless stack
centrino just because intel contributed to it either.
Centrino: Intel-only brand name
WiFi: trade association brand-name, not joined by all players
802.11{a,b,g}: technical name of technologies
wireless: an overly generic name that people might think should
include bluetooth, wireless usb, etc etc.
OpenFabrics is not a single company brand name, it is the name of
the community that's actually implementing this software stack,
like 'Gnome' or 'KDE'.
BTW, I've had meetings with about 5 startups that began like, We have
an rdma device, but it's not actually RDMA as defined by that IEEE
Committee. And these devices don't work like that definition. So
there's considerable difference of opinion as to what RDMA means.
-- greg
___
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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:45:39AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: That's much better than rdma_, but do you really think the Linux folks are going to be happy about OpenFabrics calls with a prefix that doesn't look anything like Open Fabrics? I don't think Linux folks care about Open Fabrics at all. No other drivers have a brand name and it's pretty silly trying to brand IB/iWARP/RDMA/whatever drivers. Exactly. Please don't even try to put brand names (especially if they're as stupid as this) in. We don't call our wireless stack centrino just because intel contributed to it either. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:28:46AM -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:18:16AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: My gut reaction is negative. The whole idea of verbs is a bit of technical jargon that makes no sense unless you've lived in the RDMA world for a while, Given the way you are defining RDMA, I'm not surprised at the conclusion you are coming to. We have been calling these the transport neutral verbs, btw. How about ofabric_ ? No way. This subsystem is about doing rdma-type operation so call it something that includes rdma. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 12:24 -0700, Sean Hefty wrote: We named ourselves OpenFabrics instead of OpenRDMA for a reason Wasn't OpenRDMA already taken? - Sean rdma_* is more descriptive than something like ofv_* or of_* in my opinion. I would think the prefix should help describe the functionality being implemented: Transport Neutral RDMA. Is there a good technical reason for not using rdma_? Steve. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:52:48AM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: rdma_* is more descriptive than something like ofv_* or of_* in my opinion. I would think the prefix should help describe the functionality being implemented: Transport Neutral RDMA. Some functions are RDMA. Others are not. If all are called RDMA, that's misleading. For example, in IB, there is send/receive as well as RDMA. ULPs often use send/receive for short messages. I wouldn't know anything about the non-IB parts of Open Fabrics, but I would bet that there is non-RDMA functionality in them. The common concept is messaging, not RDMA. -- greg ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 08:15 -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:52:48AM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: rdma_* is more descriptive than something like ofv_* or of_* in my opinion. I would think the prefix should help describe the functionality being implemented: Transport Neutral RDMA. Some functions are RDMA. Others are not. If all are called RDMA, that's misleading. For example, in IB, there is send/receive as well as RDMA. ULPs often use send/receive for short messages. I see your point. However, the IETF RDMA protocol defines SEND as well as READ, WRITE, etc. So in my mind, that's all RDMA, not just read and write. Steve. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:52:48AM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: rdma_* is more descriptive than something like ofv_* or of_* in my opinion. I would think the prefix should help describe the functionality being implemented: Transport Neutral RDMA. Some functions are RDMA. Others are not. If all are called RDMA, that's misleading. For example, in IB, there is send/receive as well as RDMA. ULPs often use send/receive for short messages. I wouldn't know anything about the non-IB parts of Open Fabrics, but I would bet that there is non-RDMA functionality in them. The common concept is messaging, not RDMA. That would imply that the purpose of the openfabrics stack is to replace netdev. I don't think we want to go there. The broadest scope I can imagine is that openfabrics is for networking where the immediate using layer is aware of memory registration. RDMA-associated send/recv is message based, but then so is SCTP. And SCTP is handled through netdev. The more important distinction is that even when using anonymous buffers via openfabrics they are *registered* buffers. Further, they are supplied by the application layer. That contrasts with non-QP-based networking where buffers are supplied without pre-registration and some degree of system buffering is available to hold received content before the application asks for it. Now you could argue that RDMA is not the best label for this class of service. You might be tempted to say it is qp based networking, but then you realize that a Queue Pair is an RDMA capable network endpoinit that is implemented using three or more queues. In other words, no short memorable label is ever perfect. Just go with the label that people recognize whether it is the best theoretical description or not. Aside from *what* the label is, the key question is whether a given function is generic RDMA versus IB or iWARP specific. I believe that is the intent of the rdma_ prefix, and I haven't spotted any misapplications yet. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:24:11AM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: However, the IETF RDMA protocol defines SEND as well as READ, WRITE, etc. So in my mind, that's all RDMA, not just read and write. Well, most people think RDMA means RDMA. The RDMA protocol undoubtedly defines SEND/RECV because it's needed in addition to RDMA to get good performance. But trying to call all of that RDMA is a marketing slogan. Here's why it's a problem: I've repeatedly seen people try to use RDMA (get and put) all the time because they think it must be faster than simple send and receive... that's what the slogans tell them. But then they discover that they need to use ordinary SEND/RECV for shorter messages and for conversations with a lot of participants. That's a technical screwup caused by the marketing slogan. Let's pick symbol names that match our organization name. I'm a bit dissappointed that several of you who were at the last Sonoma conference forgot we discussed this in a public session right before the name change. I am not on the steering committee, and wouldn't be surprised if the openrdma domain name issue was the big decider in the name choice, but the wisdom of having RDMA in our name was in doubt for more reasons than just that. -- g ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:01:16AM -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote: That would imply that the purpose of the openfabrics stack is to replace netdev. I don't think it implies that at all. -- greg ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Greg Lindahl wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:24:11AM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: However, the IETF RDMA protocol defines SEND as well as READ, WRITE, etc. So in my mind, that's all RDMA, not just read and write. Well, most people think RDMA means RDMA. The RDMA protocol undoubtedly defines SEND/RECV because it's needed in addition to RDMA to get good performance. But trying to call all of that RDMA is a marketing slogan. I agree that the term RDMA SEND is confusing. However, the data in an RDMA SEND is deposited directly (zero copy) into the users memory. With that in mind, I can understand why the authors of the IETF spec termed these operations RDMA SEND/RECV. Here's why it's a problem: I've repeatedly seen people try to use RDMA (get and put) all the time because they think it must be faster than I'm assuming RDMA get/put correspond to RDMA READ/WRITE. simple send and receive... that's what the slogans tell them. But then they discover that they need to use ordinary SEND/RECV for shorter messages and for conversations with a lot of participants. By ordinary SEND/RECV, do you mean IB/iWARP SEND/RECV or traditional (sockets) networking send(2)/recv(2)? That's a technical screwup caused by the marketing slogan. The terms RDMA read and RDMA write are technically accurate. It sounds like these developers were misled to believe that using RDMA will speed up all communications. Of course that is not true. There are situations (e.g. short lived connections) were RDMA may not be appropriate. Let's pick symbol names that match our organization name. Our organization name has more to do with marketing than anything else. I'm a bit dissappointed that several of you who were at the last Sonoma conference forgot we discussed this in a public session right before the name change. I am not on the steering committee, and wouldn't be surprised if the openrdma domain name issue was the big decider in the name choice, but the wisdom of having RDMA in our name was in doubt for more reasons than just that. I think either rdmav_ or rdv_ would be ok, but I see how using RDMA throughout the API could be confusing. Perhaps someone can think of a better prefix. How about dav_ (direct access verb)? ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
I apologize for trying to take this thread in a slightly useful direction, but... Greg, what would be your suggestion of a more generic (not IB-specific) replacement of the libibverbs name and ibv_ prefix? - R. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
Perhaps someone can think of a better prefix. How about dav_ (direct access verb)? Ugh... makes me think of http://www.webdav.org/ I think rdmav_ is the best I've seen so far... - R. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:25:39PM -0400, James Lentini wrote: I agree that the term RDMA SEND is confusing. However, the data in an RDMA SEND is deposited directly (zero copy) into the users memory. There are many mechanisms other than DMA or RDMA which have this property. You're confusing specification with implementation, too. When I read from a disk on modern Unix, the data is deposited into the user's memory, whether it's DMA or PIO. The defining characteristic of RDMA is that it deposits or reads data based on address provided by the other side, *and* that it has one-sided semantics. In ordinary messaging, data is transferred from buffers which are much less flexibly addressed, and semantics are two-sided. Here's why it's a problem: I've repeatedly seen people try to use RDMA (get and put) all the time because they think it must be faster than I'm assuming RDMA get/put correspond to RDMA READ/WRITE. Yes, get and put are what the general community have traditionally called these operations. These names emphasize the one-sided nature of the operation, unlike the new official(tm) names. simple send and receive... that's what the slogans tell them. But then they discover that they need to use ordinary SEND/RECV for shorter messages and for conversations with a lot of participants. By ordinary SEND/RECV, do you mean IB/iWARP SEND/RECV or traditional (sockets) networking send(2)/recv(2)? I was actually thinking of OpenIB SEND/RECV. That's a technical screwup caused by the marketing slogan. The terms RDMA read and RDMA write are technically accurate. It seems we have different defintions of technical, then. Slogans don't make good engineering. Perhaps someone can think of a better prefix. How about dav_ (direct access verb)? That's much better than rdma_, but do you really think the Linux folks are going to be happy about OpenFabrics calls with a prefix that doesn't look anything like Open Fabrics? -- greg ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:32:05AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: Greg, what would be your suggestion of a more generic (not IB-specific) replacement of the libibverbs name and ibv_ prefix? Anything that makes it clear that it's an Open Fabrics call. Which is what our organization and software stack are called. -- greg ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
Greg Anything that makes it clear that it's an Open Fabrics Greg call. Which is what our organization and software stack are Greg called. Without a specific suggestion I still think librdmaverbs/rdmav_ are the best solution I've seen so far. Let's forget about OpenFabrics marketing for a little bit and just focus on Linux RDMA drivers, which is after all what the point is. - R. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
Quoting r. Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal. Perhaps someone can think of a better prefix. How about dav_ (direct access verb)? Ugh... makes me think of http://www.webdav.org/ I think rdmav_ is the best I've seen so far... Yea. -- MST ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
That's much better than rdma_, but do you really think the Linux folks are going to be happy about OpenFabrics calls with a prefix that doesn't look anything like Open Fabrics? I don't think Linux folks care about Open Fabrics at all. No other drivers have a brand name and it's pretty silly trying to brand IB/iWARP/RDMA/whatever drivers. - R. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:39:49AM -0700, Sean Hefty wrote: Or maybe just verb. Would that be better? That's a good one. IMO, the underlying issue with using 'rdma' is that a software based solution doesn't actually do 'rdma'. I think this is Greg's complaint, and why he uses the terms 'get/put' instead of rdma read/write. Actually, no, it isn't that. It's philosophical, a reaction to the marketing over-hyping of RDMA. I'm stunned that you've never heard of put and get ! Never used CRAY SHMEM or any one-sided interconnect, I guess? MPI uses those terms, too. -- greg ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Lindahl Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:38 AM To: James Lentini Cc: openib-general Subject: Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal. On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:25:39PM -0400, James Lentini wrote: I agree that the term RDMA SEND is confusing. However, the data in an RDMA SEND is deposited directly (zero copy) into the users memory. There are many mechanisms other than DMA or RDMA which have this property. You're confusing specification with implementation, too. When I read from a disk on modern Unix, the data is deposited into the user's memory, whether it's DMA or PIO. The defining characteristic of RDMA is that it deposits or reads data based on address provided by the other side, *and* that it has one-sided semantics. In ordinary messaging, data is transferred from buffers which are much less flexibly addressed, and semantics are two-sided. Trying to characterize RDMA as consisting *solely* of messages that identify target buffers in the message is off target. RDMA protocols rely on the combination of messages that name their target buffer and messages that target anonymous buffers (that are selected by the Data Sink). The iWARP terminology, tagged and untagged is actually quite useful here and it helps emphasize that the two techniques complement each other. The more informative distinction between RDMA and conventional networking is that with RDMA even the anonymous buffers come directly from the user (not from system buffering), MUST be pre-posted (via RQ or SRQ) and MUST be enabled (registered) for RDMA access explicitly by a layer *above* RDMA. Now if you can come up with a short acronym that conveys that then I am fine with using it. But avoid explanations that imply that RDMA SEND/RECV is somehow less part of RDMA than RDMA Write or RDMA Read. Trying to use openfabrics either results in something too long or insufficiently clear when viewed in the context of the kernel as a whole (of_?). ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:45:39AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: No other drivers have a brand name and it's pretty silly trying to brand IB/iWARP/RDMA/whatever drivers. I don't see this as branding or marketing. I see it as trying to come up with a name that's accurate. What do you think of verb_ ? -- greg ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 10:41 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: Greg Anything that makes it clear that it's an Open Fabrics Greg call. Which is what our organization and software stack are Greg called. Without a specific suggestion I still think librdmaverbs/rdmav_ are the best solution I've seen so far. Let's forget about OpenFabrics marketing for a little bit and just focus on Linux RDMA drivers, which is after all what the point is. I agree. Plus we already have precedence for rdma_ with the RDMA CMA... Steve. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 10:33 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: Perhaps someone can think of a better prefix. How about dav_ (direct access verb)? Ugh... makes me think of http://www.webdav.org/ I think rdmav_ is the best I've seen so far... I second this... - R. ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:54:55AM -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote: Trying to characterize RDMA as consisting *solely* of messages that identify target buffers in the message is off target. You're using circular arguments: Because one particular subset of the RDMA community defines RDMA in fashion X, it is off target to define RDMA in any other fashion. One-sided vs. two-sided is important. You've completely left that out. Well, no matter: we don't need to argue about the defintion of RDMA to solve the question of what the transport-neutral prefix should be. I have no doubt that we would never agree about the defintion. Now if you can come up with a short acronym that conveys that then I am fine with using it. Try now if *someone* can come up with. How did you like verb_ ? -- greg ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Greg Lindahl wrote: I'm stunned that you've never heard of put and get ! Never used CRAY SHMEM or any one-sided interconnect, I guess? MPI uses those terms, too. Dusting off my copy of vipl.h, circa 1996, I see that these operations were called RDMA READ/WRITE in VIA. For at least a decade, the RDMA READ/WRITE terms have been used consistently in RDMA network specifications. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
What do you think of verb_ ? My gut reaction is negative. The whole idea of verbs is a bit of technical jargon that makes no sense unless you've lived in the RDMA world for a while, so I'd rather not make it the central concept. Also it seems a bit on the generic side -- there might be clashes/confusion with verbose or verbatim. - R. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 02:17:20PM -0400, James Lentini wrote: Dusting off my copy of vipl.h, circa 1996, I see that these operations were called RDMA READ/WRITE in VIA. Yes, and that's the predecessor to IB, so that's no surprise that it uses the same term. The IETF RDMA people also use it. Do you think that's all there is to RDMA? I am not surprised that as a storage guy, that's what you're most familiar with. -- greg ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:03:16PM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: I agree. Plus we already have precedence for rdma_ with the RDMA CMA... That's precedence about like I used the term 'wimps' in a poster paper once, so now you should allow me to use 'wimps' in my Astrophysical Journal article. True story. Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. Which in turn spawned MACHOs, MAssive Compact Halo Objects. Fun, but not the way to do software engineering. Hint: did you ever hold a discussion as to whether or not that was the right transport-neutral name? -- greg ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:18:16AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: My gut reaction is negative. The whole idea of verbs is a bit of technical jargon that makes no sense unless you've lived in the RDMA world for a while, Given the way you are defining RDMA, I'm not surprised at the conclusion you are coming to. We have been calling these the transport neutral verbs, btw. How about ofabric_ ? -- greg ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
Greg Hint: did you ever hold a discussion as to whether or not Greg that was the right transport-neutral name? Jeeze, Sean posted the RDMA CM code to three mailing lists for review about 100 times. Did you ever complain about the naming convention? - R. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 11:27 -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:03:16PM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: I agree. Plus we already have precedence for rdma_ with the RDMA CMA... That's precedence about like I used the term 'wimps' in a poster paper once, so now you should allow me to use 'wimps' in my Astrophysical Journal article. True story. Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. Which in turn spawned MACHOs, MAssive Compact Halo Objects. Fun, but not the way to do software engineering. Hint: did you ever hold a discussion as to whether or not that was the right transport-neutral name? -- greg You seem to be the only one objecting to rdma_ and/or rdmav_. I've listened to your arguments for why you think rdma is a bad name, and I'm not convinced. This is an interface to RDMA transports... Steve. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:34:41PM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: You seem to be the only one objecting to rdma_ and/or rdmav_. At Sonoma, I was not the only one. I forget, were you there? I've listened to your arguments for why you think rdma is a bad name, and I'm not convinced. I'm not surprised, I did not expect to convince everyone. However, it is not the case that you get to pick the name by yourself. Nor I. -- greg ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
Tom Tucker wrote: Perhaps someone can think of a better prefix. How about dav_ (direct access verb)? Ugh... makes me think of http://www.webdav.org/ I think rdmav_ is the best I've seen so far... I second this... rdma_ or rdmav_ is my peference as well. - 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 11:38 -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote: On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 01:34:41PM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: You seem to be the only one objecting to rdma_ and/or rdmav_. At Sonoma, I was not the only one. I forget, were you there? No. I've listened to your arguments for why you think rdma is a bad name, and I'm not convinced. I'm not surprised, I did not expect to convince everyone. However, it is not the case that you get to pick the name by yourself. Nor I. True... ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
Greg I'm not surprised, I did not expect to convince Greg everyone. However, it is not the case that you get to pick Greg the name by yourself. Nor I. Yeah, as the libibverbs maintainer I guess it's my decision in the end. Is there anyone other than Greg who has a problem with librdmaverbs and rdmav_ symbol names? - R. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: Greg Hint: did you ever hold a discussion as to whether or not Greg that was the right transport-neutral name? Jeeze, Sean posted the RDMA CM code to three mailing lists for review about 100 times. Did you ever complain about the naming convention? Roland, I'm not sure what to say. I suspect you think you're being constructive, but I'm getting tired of being shot at for being the messanger. This is an issue important enough that having an explicit discussion is a good idea. It shouldn't have come up as part of a patch. And it wasn't clear to me that the RDMA CM was intended to be part of the transport neutral verbs. If you look a the subject of this thread, it's clear that it's about transport neutral verbs. So I looked, and was surprised. -- greg ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
Greg This is an issue important enough that having an explicit Greg discussion is a good idea. It shouldn't have come up as part Greg of a patch. I'm not really convinced of the importance. To me the exact prefix of the verbs library symbols seems like a bike shed. Unless someone else has a problem with the rmdav_ name then I think we should let this die. - R. ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 12:04:21PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: Unless someone else has a problem with the rmdav_ name then I think we should let this die. Sounds like a call for an open discssion on it, with a proper subject line, even. And asking outside of openib-general. Which is what I am suggesting. -- greg ___ 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
We named ourselves OpenFabrics instead of OpenRDMA for a reason Wasn't OpenRDMA already taken? - 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
Re: [openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
This patchset is a proposal to create new API's and data structures with transport neutral names. We named ourselves OpenFabrics instead of OpenRDMA for a reason, did I miss some point where we decided that we would use RDMA as a transport neutral name in the source code? -- greg ___ 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
[openib-general] [PATCH 0/6] Tranport Neutral Verbs Proposal.
This patchset is a proposal to create new API's and data structures with
transport neutral names. The idea is to remove the old API once all
libraries/applications/examples are gradually converted to use the new API.
Patch 1/6 - Changes to libibverbs configuration file to build the libibverbs
with the new API.
Patch 2/6 - Additions to include files in libibverbs for the new API.
Patch 3/6 - Source files in libibverbs defining the new API.
Patch 4/6 - Convert librdmacm examples to use the new API.
Patch 5/6 - Convert librdmacm include files to use the new libibverbs API.
Patch 6/6 - Convert librdmacm source files to use the new libibverbs API.
Information notes found during the changes :
- Added LIBRDMAVERBS_DRIVER_PATH and also use old OPENIB_DRIVER_PATH_ENV for
backwards compatibility, but have not set user_path to include
OPENIB_DRIVER_PATH_ENV results.
- Currently ibv_driver_init is implemented in all drivers. But the function
returns a struct ibv_driver *, while we expect struct rdma_driver *. In
reality this is fine as they are both pointers pointing to identical objects.
Otherwise each driver has to be changed now. Once all drivers are changed to
use rdma_* API's, this will not be an issue.
- IB specific routines are also converted to use RDMA generic API's for sake
of uniformness (knowing that transport dependent names will be removed
once all apps are converted).
- Passing different pointer to verbs, though the end result is the same (no
warnings generated though as this is a link-time trick). Eg :
int rdma_query_device(struct rdma_context *context,
struct rdma_device_attr *device_attr)
{
return context-ops.query_device(context, device_attr);
}
However this will not be an issue once the drivers are changed to use the
new API. Eg :
int mthca_query_device(struct rdma_context *context,
struct rdma_device_attr *attr)
Signed-off-by: Krishna Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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
