On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 09:40:39AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:02:28AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > I just want to be sure that once any vendor in this susbsystem > > will use the same magic sentence "it gives best performance for our > > hardware and future devices will come". There will be no questions about > > interoperability between various devices, no more questions about > > standards, no more requests to implement for other drivers (hardware and > > software). > > Don't be absurd.. > > I repeatedly chewed out intel for having their driver act like a > subsystem in of itself, keeping user-facing code that is not linked to > hardware out of driver is the right thing to do. Jason, Yes, you did, however for many reasons hfi ended to be subsystem on its own, and now we are moving this subsystem one layer up. I really failed to understand your point of view, why hfi-vnic is not linked to specific hardware. Thanks > > Jason
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
