On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 09:58:56AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:44:38AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:58:40PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure why there is so much noise about this - yes, iwpmd is > > > really weird, but it is a UAPI, we can't change it and we can't demand > > > they change. > > > > If you claim that it is UAPI change, we MUST revert this patch, because > > reverted patch CHANGED UAPI. > > That is not how I read it.. The UAPI was intended to be lossless and > there was a kernel bug that made it more lossy than expected, that is > what that original patch was addressing. The catch 22 here is in the fact that there is no kernel bug. I assume and according to Bart's questions (but better to ask him) he thinks the same, that the bug is in protocol layer and/or user space part. There is no visible kernel bug. This is exactly what we are asking from Chien to provide the details. Thanks > > Jason
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
