Sean Hefty wrote:
These are the things done today in the kernel wrt IB:
* Map a local or remote IP address to a GID
* If a local address is not given, provide a usable address based on the
destination address
* Acquire a path between the source and destination
* Format the first 36 bytes of priv
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
So why not have a more general, flexible approach? Isolating ACM from librdmacm
by using AF_IB is a good idea, it keeps them seperate and lets ACM and future
go where ever. I hope Sean can make it work with the rdma_getddrinfo idea, that
would completely seperate ACM and
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Mainly for RDMA what you get is more kernel flexability, IP like
capabilities, better bonding, and better support of IB APM semantics:
- bind() + listen() actually works properly if more than one
interface is bound to the same IP - the cm_id returned by accept is
bou
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 01:25:21PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> well, you didn't address some of my comments (not the ice-cream
> ones...), which come to say that this wouldn't be inter-operable if for
> one side you convert INET/TCP to IB/IB and for the other side you don't
> (e.g userA/userB us
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 01:32:27PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >So why not have a more general, flexible approach? Isolating ACM from
> >librdmacm by using AF_IB is a good idea, it keeps them seperate and lets
> >ACM and future go where ever. I hope Sean can make it work w
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 01:52:13PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Jason, Have you even looked into or tested any of the bonding
> load-balancing modes with ipoib? some/most of them are not applicable to
> IPoIB and I don't think that the ones which may be such were ever
> tested.
I was saying tha
