On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 09:27:32AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2016, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > This is where I get upset with the process we are following here, > > > > without input from other hardware architects in other companies, > > > > it is hard to design something truly common. > > > > > > Presumably the other vendors are listening in on this conversation. The > > > lack of alternate proposals and objections by them has often been > > > considered silent approval in the past. > > > > I know the various hardware architects that would be involved with a > > IBTA process/etc do not monitor this list. > > An IBTA process? How would that be relevant here? What do you mean? IBTA is the only multi-vendor body left working on standardizing the hardware specification for verbs. These various recent patches are adding new hardware features to verbs. If you want hardware knowledgeable people to help, then you need to go to the forums they are active in. This isn't just a software exercise. > > > On the other hand nothing is going to happen if one vendor does not push > > > ahead. There were multiple implementations in the IP stack as well until > > > things settled. We need to be able to do the same and not stifle > > > innovation by making a vendor to wait until the competition comes > > > up with something similar. > > > > Agreed. > > > > I'm just saying, do it in user space and leave the common kernel uAPI > > alone until a more obvious consensus is reached. That should speed > > everything up.. > > How would you do this in user space? Use udata to get the driver to do the little bits needed. 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
