On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:31:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:57:09AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > The other take away from the Collab discussion is that there is a > > reasonable opinion that linux-rdma is not the right forum to decide if > > major changes to the multi-vendor common-verbs APIs are > > OK. I don't know if we reached a consensus on this or not. > > Who had that discussion, and why do you believe it's viable? In fact > I'd like to state that any other forum than linux-rdma simply is not > credible, just like the relevant list is the only credible place to > discuss the ABIs for any other Linux subsystem. I would say mostly from people looking at it from a hardware design perspective. The unique issue with verbs is that nearly all the APIs match directly to some feature in silicon, and cross-vendor silicon focused agreements are rarely done on Linux focused mailing lists. Particularly when these features are expected to be multi-operating system. That is my fundamental concern every time a uAPI change comes up: These proposed API changes *directly* require other vendors to implement very specific things in their sillicon. This is not a software-only discussion, as the majority of other Linux uAPI things are. * And I specifically separate the nitty gritty details of the API/ABI from the overarching ideas: eg, introducing a dis-aggregated QP concept with WQ objects, and defining it how that interacts with everything else. Jason -- 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
