[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
on 07/29/2005 03:52:56 PM:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:59:03 -0400 (EDT)
> James Lentini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Woodruff, Robert J wrote:
> >
> > > Venkat wrote,
> > >> If anyone attended any one of the summits (netconf or
kernel) a
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/29/2005
05:04:16 AM:
> your card drivers or rather start writing sane ones. Roland
writing the
> new mthca driver of mellanox IB cards is what got the OpenIB ball
> rolling.
>
Couldn't agree more on this. At a minimum, at least
one RNIC vendor
> At OLS (and in previous forums), the kernel maintainers
have made it
> *very* clear that there should only be one API.
It is good to know but can you be specific about who
those maintainers
are and under what context they mentioned this at
OLS and what ever the
previous forums that you are re
> I've been advocating rdmaconsortium folks submit patches
> against openib.org for several reasons:
Probably, you meant openrdma.org opensource project but not
a standards setting body (i.e. RDMA consortium -
http://www.rdmaconsortium.org/home) :)
> 1) start with a code base that works
> 2) s
Exactly, the code matters from Linux
community standpoint
and the discussion around the convergence
of common PI is
mute until we have that header file
definition but which will come
out soon.
However, I am quite glad to see the
OpenIB and
OpenRDMA communities in agreement on
common
ULP's and DA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/27/2005 10:40:20 AM:
> > On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 09:58:44AM -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> > > > I understand most of what you wrote but am still missing one bit:
> > > > How is the RNIC told what the peer IP is it should
> > communicate with?
> > >
> > > The TCP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/27/2005 10:25:36 AM:
> Mike,
> I am not sure I do understand what your were trying
> to communicate. Let me try and decode this. My basic
> point was to respond to Venkata's response about
> complete offload without any interaction with the host
> system. I disagr
"Woodruff, Robert J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/26/2005 05:12:27 PM:
> >RNIC-PI is at least an attempt at providing full control over
> >both iWARP and IB while making as much common as
> >possible.
>
> Where were you last year when the IB verbs header files/API were being
> discussed.
> Se
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/25/2005 09:47:00 PM:
> Venkata,
> Interesting coincidence: I was talking with someone (at HP) today
> who knows substantially more than I do about RNICs.
> They indicated RNICs need to manage TCP state on the card from userspace.
> I suspect that's only possible thro
"Bob Woodruff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 05/26/2005 08:49:59 AM:
> Venkat> I would like to start a discussion around the
convergence of RDMA
> APIs and ULPs
> Venkat> between OpenIB and OpenRDMA projects.
>
> Once the RNIC people have a mid-layer that interfaces with the RDMA
API
> (kDA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/26/2005 04:33:46 AM:
> On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 11:20:14PM -0700, Venkata Jagana wrote:
> > I would like to really understand the technical reasons why you say
> > RNIC-PI is irrelevant to Linux kernel.
> > RNIC-PI is developed to support not o
I am sure the developers in both of these communities have strong opinions in one way or
the other about the use of common interface and whatever it is but ultimately we need to
find a best possible way to move forward in order to support IB, RNICs and other future
RDMA fabrics. :)
Absolutely, w
I would like to start a discussion around the convergence of RDMA APIs and ULPs
between OpenIB and OpenRDMA projects.
As you all know, Infiniband and iWARP based RNICs support RDMA capabilities being
exploited by both kernel and user based applications and which can take advantage of
these RDMA c
13 matches
Mail list logo
