Re: RDMAoE verbs questions

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 06:22:06PM +0200, Liran Liss wrote:
> > Dealing with ABI compatability is a different issue, this new scheme
> is API incompatible due to the change in semantics for existing values.
> 
> For rdmacm applications, there are no semantic changes between IB and
> RDMAoE.

So? There are substantial semantic differences for *all* non-rdmacm
applications. Even common ones like OpenMPI. You propose to ignore them?

> > Please look at my message regarding using multiple devices, perhaps
> you can improve on that general idea.
> 
> RDMAoE *is* IB transport over Ethernet - we don't want different devices
> with different node types exactly for this reason: applications
> shouldn't care if they are running over IB or RDMAoE, and shouldn't add
> another switch statement to support RDMAoE.

Nonsense. RDMAoE is no such thing, it is utterly incompatible with the
IB management model. It is some new protocol that is only about 90%
compatible with IB.

Apps using rdmacm shouldn't care one way or the other, apps that don't
*need* a new transport type.

Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html