On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:02:25PM -0400, chetan loke wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Jon Mason <jon.mason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I don't see the benefit of having the driver in staging. Any vendors > > who would notice the ntb driver in staging would be sitting on these > > mailing lists and hopefully have planety of comments on the design. > > Stashing the driver in staging while waiting for these comments (which > > may never come) doesn't seem the best course of action. > > > > I thought that since others are talking about it then may be there is > some WIP code for foo-NTB. Seems like that's not the case. So no need > to stage. > > Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't apps just open a socket and route > data via ntb_vir_eth_dev? So I don't see an ABI breakage issue and > hence nothing would prevent us from changing the kernel parts(for > accommodating some foo-NTB part) in future. The virtual ethernet device (patch #2) would allow for a generic way of passing data to the remote side. The only issue would be changing how it is encoded in the shared buffer. > It may not be a bad idea to prefix intel-specific(if any) > ntb_structs/variables/logic with the 'intc'(Intel ticker or pick your > string) keyword. The Intel specific things are current pre-pended with "xeon" or "bwd". Thanks, Jon > > Chetan Loke -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
