Re: [PATCH 06/10] IB/hfi1: Add ioctl() interface for user commands

[Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 03:01:29PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> >I think the overall consensus over participants in OFVWG call was to use
>> >one IOCTL to enter into device specific handler which will do all
>> >necessary parsing and not spamming common IOCTL interface.
>> 
>> That was for the verbs working group and the verbs 2.0 uAPI. This is for
>> psm.
>
>I'm glad that you are supporting my point.
>It is vendor specific implementation for vendor specific driver and not
>for whole IB core, so there is no need to pollute general IB ioctls.

It is making use of and applying a proper classification.  Is there a 
technical concern with this other than that's not how verbs may end up doing 
it? 

I'm not completely opposed to the single ioctl, I just don't necessarily see 
that as better in this case but am willing to listen to a technical 
justification for why it's incorrect.

>> In the interim, while the OFVWG is solidifying its one API to rule them 
>> all,
>> this solves our current and very specific problem of treating
>> write()/writev() differently.
>
>OFVWG is working on improving current verbs interface, for proprietary things like this,
>there is agreed API which will look similar to this:

As far as I know there has been no patches posted or real on-list review of 
this API as of yet.

-Denny
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html