On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:17:55PM -0400, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:01:26AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:48:31PM -0400, Ira Weiny wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:45:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:41:35AM -0700, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > > > > > This patch series removes the write() interface for user access in favor of an > > > > > ioctl() based approach. This is in response to the complaint that we had > > > > > different handlers for write() and writev() doing different things and expecting > > > > > different types of data. See: > > > > > > > > I think we should wait on applying these patches until we globally sort out > > > > what to do with the rdma uapi. > > > > > > > > It just doesn't make alot of sense for drivers to have their own personal > > > > char devices. :( > > > > > > I'm afraid I have to disagree at this time. Someday we may have "1 char device > > > to rule them all" but right now we don't have any line of sight to that > > > solution. It may be _years_ before we can agree to the semantics which will > > > work for all high speed, kernel bypass, rdma, low latency, network devices. > > > > You didn't ever try to come and work on the solution. We talked about > > finite time frame (_months_) which is doable based on knowledge that user > > space parts are developed by the same companies and all our future changes > > will be in one subsystem. > > How can you say that I am not working on a solution? > > We spent most of last week discussing possible solutions and I am in support of > a more common core. Great, did you show it to other RDMA stakeholders except Intel? I saw nothing posted on ML or proposed for initial discussion, which will be held in the next week or two. It is a great opportunity to you guys to start and respect Linux kernel collaboration development model and to stop to try to do it in your corporate way.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
