[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <000001c7dfb5$5e6ced20$4dc8180a@amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:27:26 -0700
From: "Sean Hefty" <sean.hefty@...el.com>
To: "'Jeff Garzik'" <jeff@...zik.org>,
"Steve Wise" <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <rdreier@...co.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <general@...ts.openfabrics.org>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH RFC] RDMA/CMA: Allocate PS_TCP portsfrom the host TCP port space.
>It's not about being a niche. It's about creating a maintainable
>software net stack that has predictable behavior.
>
>Needing to reach out of the RDMA sandbox and reserve net stack resources
>away from itself travels a path we've consistently avoided.
We need to ensure that we're also creating a maintainable kernel. RDMA doesn't
use sockets, but that doesn't mean it's not part of the networking support
provided by the Linux kernel. Making blanket statements that RDMA should stay
within a sandbox is equivalent to saying that RDMA should duplicate any network
related functionality that it might need.
>>> I will NACK any patch that opens up sockets to eat up ports or
>>> anything stupid like that.
>
>Ditto for me as well.
I agree that using a socket is the wrong approach, but my guess is that it was
suggested as a possibility because of the attempt to keep RDMA in its 'sandbox'.
The iWarp architecture implements RDMA over TCP; it just doesn't use sockets.
The Linux network stack doesn't easily support this possibility. Are there any
reasonable ways to enable this to the degree necessary for iWarp?
- Sean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists