> Nobody has presented another criteria that makes EFA and usnic any > different, so we are back to the start. Was usnic a bad idea or not? > How do we support 'usnic' style devices without wrecking the rest of > the stack? Let's start by agreeing on what verbs is: an abstract definition of the functionality that a NIC supports. From there, define the uverbs objects in terms of generic behavior, with addressing kept separate. I thought the primary requirement for a driver was to have at least one user. It doesn't matter if the user is another kernel driver or a Linux-ABI. If we want to be more specific, does EFA support some subset of the commands and data structures defined ib_user_verbs.h in a manner that's similar to other devices? Can the uverbs driver manage allocated resources (PDs, MRs, QPs, CQs, AHs) the same as other devices. Based on patch 11 and responses to my questions, it looks that way to me. There are a couple areas where the functionality is missing (e.g. QP state transitions), but the submission looks closer than not. - Sean
