> > As the existing rdma subsystem doesn't seems to support the above use > > case yet > > Why would you say that? If EFA needs SRD and RDM objects in RDMA they > can create them, it is not a big issue. To my knowledge they haven't asked for > them. When looking at how to integrate UET support into verbs, there were changes relevant to this discussion that I found needed. 1. Allow an RDMA device to indicate that it supports multiple transports, separated per port. 2. Specify the QP type separate from the protocol. 3. Define a reliable, unconnected QP type. Lin might be referring to 2 (assuming 3 is resolved). These are straightforward to address. I don't think we'd end up with a protocol object (e.g. SRD), versus it just being an attribute of 3 (e.g. RDM QP). EFA defined a custom QP type with a single protocol, so they didn't try to standardize this. However, it could fit into the above model. - Sean
