On 5/23/2016 4:58 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 07:36:03PM +0000, Weiny, Ira wrote: >>> On 05/18/2016 02:28 PM, Mark Bloch wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Doug Ledford [mailto:dledford@xxxxxxxxxx] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 8:59 PM >>>>> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Cc: Mark Bloch <markb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; leon@xxxxxxxxxx; linux- >>>>> rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next V2 5/5] IB/core: Integrate IB address >>>>> resolution module into core >>>>> >>>>> On 05/18/2016 01:15 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:51:02AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >>>>>>> moves it into the ib_core and also keep the new ib_netlink stuff in >>>>>>> ib_core. So, fewer modules, not more. >>>>>> >>>>>> What about getting rid of ib_sa as well so we can avoid that dynamic >>>>>> netlink registration patch too? >>>>> >>>>> That's fine too. >>>> Integrating ib_sa into ib_core also means to do the same for ib_mad. >>>> If you agree with it (ib_sa & ib_mad becoming part of ib_core), I'll create >>> the patches. >>> >>> Ira, Hal? >>> >> >> I don't see a problem with that. > > Doug, > > Will it be acceptable to you if Mark base his patches on this assumption? Yes.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
