IBTF IO Memory [PSARC/2008/630 FastTrack timeout 10/17/2008]

[Kais Belgaied]

On 10/20/08 15:01, Ted H. Kim wrote:
>
> I am also not sure where this is leading.
> Are you suggesting some specific change to the case?

I'm not clear on the future compatibility expectations around the 
interface introduced by this case:

 I asked whether versions are incremental all the time and you answered yes
((capabs of V(n+1) includes all capabs of V(n))
I asked if some capabs can be used independently, you also said  yes, 
which suggests
(capabs of V(n+1)) don't necessarily have to include all capabs of V(n). 
Capabs are independent.

The former means that an IBT client module written to V(n) is guaranteed 
to work unmodified on a framework+HCAs
that evolved to V(n+1) or later.

The latter means modules may break or may continue to work. No backward 
compatibility is guaranteed.

Choose one semantic for the interface and clearly document it in the case.

    Kais.

>
> -ted
>