On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:57:56PM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > > > point where there is enough support for the core to manage the > > > device from a high level, and bigger picture things like SELinux and > > > containers, but leave the data path up to the driver/userspace to go > > > figure out? > > > > So, we just ignored usnic for containers SELinux and other modern > > stuff. This is another reason why it is a bad idea. > > Regardless I think it's clear the low bar for the subsystem going forward is > verbs support sufficient to run NVMEoF. I don't have any objections. > > Now the question becomes, does rdma-core (user tool) need to be supported? > Or is having a libfabrics provider going to be sufficient? We have danced > around the topic, but let's make it clear. As I said, I think kernel verbs must be accompanied by user verbs in libibverbs. Otherwise it is impossible to test the implementation properly. If someone does this and really doesn't want user verbs then they should refine the generic non-bypass verbs path we have (ie post send syscall, etc) and write a generic rdma-core provider to test their kernel verbs with. But I can't really see a kernel verbs provider without a userspace one as an acceptable driver.. Jason
