From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 0/3] Support out of order data placement Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:17:04 -0600 Message-ID: <20170613191704.GA17727@obsidianresearch.com> References: <20170612165536.GB12435@obsidianresearch.com> <6747e257-67b0-a364-be21-04f73ef82ffe@talpey.com> <475e1873-e842-ecb9-d260-34777da57e51@talpey.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Tom Talpey Cc: Parav Pandit , Bart Van Assche , "leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Idan Burstein List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 09:30:05PM -0400, Tom Talpey wrote: > >>Again, I'd be a lot less concerned if non-strict were the default, and strict > >>mode was negotiated. It's all just so upside-down. > > > >In IB spec, in-order delivery is default. > > I don't agree. Requests are sent in-order, and the responder > processes them in-order, but the bytes thenselves are not > guaranteed to appear in-order. Additionally, if retries occur, > this is most definitely not the case. +1 And again, if message ordering and table 79 are unchanged in this new mode it is still fully conformant to the IBTA (and again, I don't see how the transmitter can change behavior and not break table 79) 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