From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [PATCH] rdma cm + XRC Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:41:20 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4C5331DC.9080109@systemfabricworks.com> <4C618334.7010106@systemfabricworks.com> <20100810171405.GM11306@obsidianresearch.com> <4C61BF26.9060003@systemfabricworks.com> <20100810225435.GA2999@obsidianresearch.com> <20100810232339.GO11306@obsidianresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100810232339.GO11306-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> (Jason Gunthorpe's message of "Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:23:39 -0600") Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: "Hefty, Sean" , frank zago , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > > I feel similarly about the XRC domain. Is there any real reason to > > expose it? What if we just defined a 1:1 relationship between PDs > > and XRC domains, or between XRC domains and XRC TGT QPs? > Near as I can tell it serves the same purpose as the PD, to provide > a form of security within a single process.. No, XRC domains can be shared between different processes -- that's kind of the point of XRCs. - R. -- Roland Dreier || For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html -- 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