On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:53:36PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote: > > > There should not be any compat - it's just going to drag down > > > development and everyone is free to submit their provider to rdma- > > core, > > > same as kernel drivers. > > > > Agree, I have no desire to support out-of-tree providers. > > What is the plan for handling live updates to a single vendor library? > > Is the intent that vendors must now (potentially) provide different > versions of their libraries, based on which libibverbs release is > deployed by the user? Well, this has been the case for awhile, at least for certain providers (eg mlx5 will not link to older libibverbs). The patch to add IBVERBS_PRIVATE_xx certainly makes it every provider's problem.. As I see it, anyone doing an update driver distribution will have to QA it with a certain libibverbs, so I doubt there is much point in making it too easy for a user to mix and match too widely?? So vendors have a few basic choices: - Ship libibverbs.rpm with the updated driver and matched libibverbs This is pretty easy, I probably would recommend this. - QA the driver with the libibverbs in the various targetted distro releases, as you suggested - Ship their fix to the distro and have the distro push the update It isn't really any different from the problem a vendor would face getting the kernel driver updated.. 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
