On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 12:29, Sean Hefty wrote: > >>Would we be okay with extending the IOCTL interface to allow multicast > >>joins, > >>notice registration, and event reporting? Or would it be acceptable to > >>change > >>the ib_umad read/write interface to add a command? > > > > > > What do you have in mind here ? > > I was thinking of one of two possibilities here. Currently there are IOCTL > calls to register/unregister with the MAD layer. Additional IOCTL calls > could > be added to join/leave multicast groups and register/unregister for SA > events. > Multicast and SA events would need to be reported through another IOCTL of > some > sort. > > The alternative basically rewrites the ib_umad interface to allow read and > write > to carry some sort of command, rather than mapping them directly to sending > and > receiving a MAD. This is how most of the RDMA kernel to user interfaces are > written. For example, let read return an event type (MAD received, multicast > event, etc.), along with the event data (the MAD, etc.).
Do we really want to go down this approach ? > >>>As an alternative, a new kernel userspace SA module could be created to > >>>explicitly interface with the kernel ib_sa. > > > > IMO, this is the best way to go. > > This was my original approach a couple of months back, but wasn't accepted as > mer gable upstream because it increased the size of the user to kernel > interface. Can you point me at this ? I must have missed it. -- Hal > If we can agree that this approach is usable, we can discuss more > specific implementation details. > > - Sean _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
