On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:24:11AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:40:47AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > I wasn't arguing this should integrate into verbs in some way, only > > that the way to access the driver-specific uAPI of a RDMA device should > > be through the RDMA common uAPI and not through a random char dev. > > Well, it's stuff not related to our RDMA userspace API (which _is_ > Verbs, not counting for the complete crackpot abuse in usnic), but > very device specific. It is weakly related, it uses the same device discovery and security model. > The stuff the intel driver are doing isn't pretty, but unfortunately > not unusual either - lots of SCSI or network driver have ioctls > like that. Now we could argue if the ioctls should be one the > main node (uverbs) or the a driver private chardev, or not exist > at all and people will have to patch the driver with some vendor > version if they really need it. Examples for either of these > choices exist in the tree. Right - and the RDMA uAPI has always had an integrated driver-bypass channel as part of the verb uAPI calls, extending that to allow for new-driver-specific calls seems very natural. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
