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:
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,
>
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
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
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
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 com
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 libr
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 f
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
__
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 su
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
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.
__
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
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."
Tru
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.
> 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
clash
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
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
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.
>
> _
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
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 v
> -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 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 t
> 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
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 s
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
James Lentini wrote:
> Perhaps someone can think of a better prefix. How about dav_ (direct
> access verb)?
Or maybe just "verb". Would that be better?
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, a
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 s
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
> 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
ht
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-g
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
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.o
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
[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 funct
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: Transp
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 a
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
>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://open
> 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
__
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
