On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:25:40AM +0300, Matan Barak wrote: > Well, if I recall, the reason doing so last time was in order to allow > flexible updating of ib_core independently, which is obviously not a good > reason (to say the least). > > Since the new ABI will probably define new object types (all recent > proposals go this way), the current approach could lead to either trying to > map new objects to existing cgroup resource types, which could lead to some > weird non 1:1 mapping, or having a split definitions - such that each > driver will declare its objects both in the cgroups mechanism and in its > driver dispatch table. > Even worse than that, drivers could simply ignore the cgroups support while > implementing their own resource types and get a very broken containers > support. Sorry guys, but arbitrary extensibility for something not finished is the worst idea ever. We have two options here: a) delay cgroups support until the grand rewrite is done b) add it now and deal with the consequences later That being said, adding random non-Verbs hardwasre to the RDMA core is the second worst idea ever. Guess I need to catch up with the discussion and start using the flame thrower. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
