On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> But this is whole purpose of the udata framework in uverbs, right? for >>> each uverb command the vendor user-space library has a well defined >>> channel to communicate directly with the low level vendor driver >>> throughout the uverbs channels. > >> Uverbs convey information between kernel and userspace drivers to >> implement verbs for userspace application. I don't think it's designed >> to allow vendor to add random extensions in the best way with regard to >> backward/forward compability. > > Disagree that this is random extension. The people that designed this > stack 10y ago (Roland and Co.) looked very nicely forward and realized > that not all the HW are the same nor can be put 101% under the same > API with no way out, and hence they came up with udata. > > Please state how you see the role of the uverbs udata mechanism. Guys, still waiting to hear why you think it's wrong here to use the mechanism which was built from day-1 for the purpose of allowing the user-space driver library to communicate with the kernel driver and pass values in both directions. Or. -- 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
