On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 10:56:25AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 11:11:42AM +0000, Alex Margolin wrote:
>
> > struct verbs_context {
> > /* "grows up" - new fields go here */
> > + struct ib_mw * (*alloc_mw_ex)(struct ibv_mw_alloc_attr
> > *mw_alloc_attr);
>
> This patch is full of weird little mistakes like the above, wouldn't
> compile and doesn't really seem capture the proposed API.
Those RFCs are intended to present concept and implementation direction.
It is a little bit over-expectation to have working code and clean UAPI
at this stage.
>
> We are now asking for complete rdma-core patches before talking about
> merging new kernel uapi features. Please retry this RFC with the new
> requirement.
There are steps in development process, and first step before rushing
into implementation details is to talk about concept. This is exactly
what Alex did.
>
> This means a patch similar to the above, except functional, and all
> the man pages and documentation.
It already exists in this RFC, just in different format - inlined and
not in patch format.
>
> The text in the cover letter should go into either into a man page or
> a Documentation/ file.
At the implementation phase, yes.
>
> For very complex uapis like this, an simple example usage is also
> going to help.
Agree.
>
> Jason
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
