> I have mixed feelings about using the SA message format for this. > > In-kernel we don't use that format, and many of the newer APIs were > designed around passing the GMP,Forward,Return path tuple, not just a > naked GMP. I think the choice of the netlink protocol is a largely matter of taste. In the internal review of these patches, the netlink hook was previously in the mad layer, which would have allowed redirecting any mad to user space. (The code only attempted to redirect SA queries.) Trying to hook from within ib_mad added a fair amount of complexity, that moving up into sa_query avoided. The proposed interface would allow moving the changes back down, versus limiting this only to the SA query calls. (And I'm not meaning to imply that limiting this only to SA queries is a bad choice.) > I'd rather see the netlink data ask for what the kernel needs (eg UD > path to X, RC path to X) and return the new format we've already > established for AF_IB Does anyone else have input on the netlink protocol? Hal/Ira? MADs seem more flexible, but higher-level structures more efficient and natural. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
