On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 11:28:39AM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > > The question here is if we should even allow drivers under > > drivers/infiniband that don't even implement common verbs, like usnic. > > I would have been on board with that in the past but these days I'm not so > sure. I would like to see us moving away from an "infiniband" subsystem to > an "rdma" subsystem and embrace other technologies. We really do need to > rename the subsystem at some point. The counterpoint is that a 'RDMA' subsystem is not just 'expose some DMA queues to user space and let userspace sort it all out'. That is properly called vfio, or perhaps matches this WarpDrive thing Kenneth was trying to build. > As far as usnic, it seems like its the driver that has been forgotten about. > I see 3 commits in 2018. I'm not saying it's important or not, that's > another debate for another thread. There are alot more than three, and all of them are from non-Cisco people trying to maintain this driver. Many are mine. This is not a plus, it shows why this approach is a burden on the rest of the community. > But for the EFA driver I'm happy to see it. I say treat this as RFC for now > until we see a libfabric or kernel ULP, or even some other open and > available user space solution. A non-verbs kernel ULP to a RDMA driver??? That is an entirely different and less happy discussion! subsystems exist to put common things under. They are not a marketing term. If a driver doesn't use the subsystem's support code, or implement the subsystems APIs, why should it be in the subsystem? Jason
