> > To be fair it is sent as RFC. So to me that says they know it's a ways off > > from being ready to be included and are starting the process early. > > I'm not sure why it is RFC. It sounds like it is much more than this > if someone has already made a version with links to the NVIDIA GPU > driver and has reached a point where they care about ABI stablility? I can take some blame here. A couple of us were asked to look at this module. Because the functionality is intended to be device agnostic, we assumed there would be more scrutiny, and we weren't sure how acceptable some aspects would be (e.g. mr cache, ib cm data format). Rather than debate this internally for months, rework the code, and still miss, we asked Kaike to post an RFC to get community feedback. For *upstreaming* purposes it was intended as an RFC to gather feedback on the overall approach. That should have been made clearer. The direct feedback that Kaike is examining is the difference between this approach and RDS. - Sean
