> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Haggai Eran > Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 10:47 AM > To: Steve Wise; jgunthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: sagig@xxxxxxxxxxxx; roid@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ogerlitz@xxxxxxxxxxxx; sean.hefty@xxxxxxxxx; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] RDMA/core: add rdma_get_dma_mr() > > On 26/06/2015 00:29, Steve Wise wrote: > > +enum rdma_mr_roles { > > + RDMA_MRR_RECV = 1, > > + RDMA_MRR_SEND = (1<<1), > > + RDMA_MRR_READ_SOURCE = (1<<2), > > + RDMA_MRR_READ_SINK = (1<<3), > > Maybe it's just me, but it took me a second to figure out which was the > source and which was the sink in RDMA reads. Do you think calling them > initiator and responder/target would be better? Not to me. For an RDMA operation, the "initiator" is the app that issues the read request WR. That app doesn't create what I call the READ_SOURCE MR. Its peer application does. So calling READ_SOURCE something like READ_INITIATOR doesn't make sense to me. That's why I thought SOURCE and SINK were clearer. Perhaps not... I have a new version I'll send out soon that will comment all of these in the enum declaration. Perhaps that will make it clear. > > > + RDMA_MRR_WRITE_SOURCE = (1<<4), > > + RDMA_MRR_WRITE_SINK = (1<<5), > > + RDMA_MRR_ATOMIC = (1<<6), > > + RDMA_MRR_MW_BIND = (1<<7), > > + RDMA_MRR_ZERO_BASED = (1<<8), > > + RDMA_MRR_ACCESS_ON_DEMAND = (1<<9), > > +}; > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
