From: Logan Gunthorpe > On 01/08/17 01:10 PM, Jon Mason wrote: > > It would probaly be better if I remarked about the SPADs in the actual > > patch about the SPADS :) > > > > The whole point of using the SPADs in the NTB driver was to workaround > > the problems establishing a connection between the two sides of the > > NTB and where everything lives. So, using a MW to get around the > > SPADs is sort of backwards (and slightly funny). I realize you are > > trying to use the existing transport with minimal changes to enable > > your hardware, and thus this makes logical sense to you. However, if > > the SPADs are not really needed, then we should either remove them > > from the transport (or use them for something else). > > > > Per my comment in the other patch, I'm amenable to take this series > > as-is, assuming you are willing to address this design issue in the > > near future. Thoughts? > > Yes, I agree. I'd be willing to help but it seems the clients are > written the way they are for the other drivers, so it's their needs > (which I'm not fully aware of) that have to be considered. The proposed change, removing use of spads from transport, would not affect ntrdma. > I've also made all the other changes you sent as well as the file rename > Dave requested. Once I see the bug fix patch you were going to pull hit > ntb-next I'll rebase, test and resubmit. > > Thanks, > > Logan
