Re: [openib-general] Re: RFC: ipath ioctls and their replacements

[Eric W. Biederman]

"Bryan O'Sullivan" <bos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 10:50 -0800, Sean Hefty wrote:
>
>> I'm not familiar with the driver, but would the lower level verbs interfaces 
>> work for this?  Could you just post whatever datagrams that you want directly
> to
>> your management QPs?
>
> Our lowest-level driver works in the absence of any IB support being
> compiled into the kernel, so in that situation, there are no QPs or any
> other management infrastructure present at all.  All of that stuff lives
> in a higher layer, in which situation the cut-down subnet management
> agent doesn't get used, and something like OpenSM is more appropriate.

Ok this is one piece of the puzzle.  At your lowest level your hardware
does not have QP's but it does have something similar to isolate a userspace
process correct?

Which sounds like one problem with the IB layer is that it assumes QPs instead
of a slight abstraction of that concept.

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/