On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:06:28 -0700 Shreyas Bhatewara <sbhatewara@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 13:21 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 10:52:53AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > Let me put it bluntly. Any design that allows external code to run > > > in the kernel is not going to be accepted. Out of tree kernel modules are enough > > > of a pain already, why do you expect the developers to add another > > > interface. > > > > Exactly. Until our friends at VMware get this basic fact it's useless > > to continue arguing. > > > > Pankaj and Dmitry: you're fine to waste your time on this, but it's not > > going to go anywhere until you address that fundamental problem. The > > first thing you need to fix in your archicture is to integrate the VF > > function code into the kernel tree, and we can work from there. > > > > Please post patches doing this if you want to resume the discussion. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pv-drivers mailing list > > Pv-drivers@xxxxxxxxxx > > http://mailman2.vmware.com/mailman/listinfo/pv-drivers > > > As discussed, following is the patch to give you an idea > about implementation of NPA for vmxnet3 driver. Although the > patch is big, I have verified it with checkpatch.pl. It gave > 0 errors / warnings. > > Signed-off-by: Matthieu Bucchaineri <matthieu@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Shreyas Bhatewara <sbhatewara@xxxxxxxxxx> I think the concept won't fly. But you should really at least try running checkpatch to make sure the style conforms. -- _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
