On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:51:42AM +0300, Matan Barak wrote: > All recent proposals of the new ABI schema deals with extending the > flexibility of the current schema by letting drivers define their specific > types, actions, attributes, etc. Even more than that, the dispatching > starts from the driver and it chooses if it wants to use the common RDMA > core layer or have it's own wise implementation instead. > Some drivers might even prefer not to implement the current verbs types. > These decisions were made in the OFVWG meetings. OFVWG meetings have absolutely zero relevance for Linux development. More "flexibility" for drivers just means giving up on designing a coherent API and leaving it to drivers authors to add crap to their own drivers. That's a major step backwards. > Sounds reasonable, but what about drivers which ignore the common code and > implement it in their own way? What about drivers which don't support the > standard RDMA types at all? They should not be using the code in drivers/infiniband. usnic is such an example of a driver that should never have been added in it's current form. -- 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
