Steve Wise wrote:
>> I hope you guys are documenting this in a way that makes this issue
>> extremely clear to both uDAPL and OFA verbs (is this the right naming?)
>> users. Maybe it's been done already, but is it possible to emit some
>> sort of loud warning/error when the accept()'ing side tries to send
>> before a receive?
> The connection comes tumbling down. How's that for loud? :)
> Seriously though, it isn't documented well enough. But we're bleeding
> edge here. And I'm still hoping somebody will come up with an elegant
> solution that doesn't break interoperability, applications and/or iwarp
> hw (i'm a dreamer :).
Well, if documenting it once saves someone a headache and a few hours of
their time, it's probably worth it.
Seems like everyone understands now what the problem is, that it sucks,
and it can't be fixed lower down the stack :) Thanks for explaining
Caitlin/Steve. As Jeff wrote, dealing with it in the BTLs really won't
be that hard, just makes things a little more complicated to maintain.