On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 09:30:05PM -0400, Tom Talpey wrote: > >>Again, I'd be a lot less concerned if non-strict were the default, and strict > >>mode was negotiated. It's all just so upside-down. > > > >In IB spec, in-order delivery is default. > > I don't agree. Requests are sent in-order, and the responder > processes them in-order, but the bytes thenselves are not > guaranteed to appear in-order. Additionally, if retries occur, > this is most definitely not the case. +1 And again, if message ordering and table 79 are unchanged in this new mode it is still fully conformant to the IBTA (and again, I don't see how the transmitter can change behavior and not break table 79) Jason -- 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
