On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:54:38AM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > > > > 3) We need to see the userspace for new drivers. A RDMA driver that > > > > doesn't provide a useful rdma-core provider is deeply suspect as > > > > not crossing the #1 threshold. > > > > > > We'll be publishing our libfabric userspace provider soon, I'll add > > > a link once it's available. > > > > libfabric does not do the checks on the ABI construction that > > rdma-core does, so that still has to be done somehow > > Are you wanting to draw a line in the sand here and say rdma-core user space > support is required for a driver to exist in the RDMA tree? I don't think > that should be a requirement, but certainly there needs to be a consumer of > this. Be it libfabric or kernel ULP, something. I'm saying someone *at least* needs to do all the driver ABI structure checks that we do in rdma-core. .. and absolutely, if the driver implements kernel verbs/common verbs there must be a rdma-core verbs provider for it as well. I don't think that is unreasonable. The question here is if we should even allow drivers under drivers/infiniband that don't even implement common verbs, like usnic. Jason
