On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 02:57:59PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 12:49 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 02:37:21PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > > > > > > > gap. I say this because I don't know of any real world use involving > > > RDMA, containers, non-init_net namespaces, and RDMA access. Do you? > > > > Yes, sites are mixing RDMA and net namespace'd containers. They need > > things to not change while they review their orchestration/etc. > > Ok, if the sites exist, then we need to accommodate them. > > > This is the whole philosophy for Linux, don't break the > > userspace. Parav's solution is really ugly, but does get the job done. > > Ok, then back to the question of the netlink control. I say we drop it > entirely and only support the kernel module. That is no more work for > the admin than running a new iproute2 command to change the mode, so > there's no argument for "but we can't require them to make any changes", > they would have to make a change either way, and then we don't have to > worry about leakage on change. This makes a bug chunk of these patches pointless as we can just create the sysfs class properly depending on module option. But we've been very against module options for a long time now, I'm not sure. Would distros accept this kind of breaking change? Jason
