Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

From: Andrew Friedley (afriedle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-09 20:46:12

> Therefore, the only truly safe thing for an iWARP btl to do (or a
> udapl btl since that is also an iWARP btl) is to have the active
> layer send an MPI Layer "nop" of some kind immediately after
> establishing the connection if there is nothing else to send.

This is fine for an iWARP/RDMACM/whatever BTL (or anything else that
uses the OFA verbs interface(s)), but my argument is that uDAPL is NOT
specifically there to support just iWARP (though it may include it), and
that OFED's uDAPL should be adjusted to handle this. Again, uDAPL is a
network *independent* abstraction, so requiring network-dependent
behavior from the uDAPL consumer is wrong.

A related question -- how does this 'connection initiator must send
first' requirement relate to UD?