Re: [ANNOUNCE] Open Fabrics Verbs Working Group (OFVWG) meeting tomorrow - 9/13/2016 at 11:00PDT

[Leon Romanovsky <leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1199 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 05:30:59AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:32:38PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > I think we're fine now.  The non-verbs HFSI interfaces aren't really a
> > > fit for our inifiband/rdma (it should really be called ibverbs I guess)
> > > interface.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, can you point me to the discussions where you
> > expressed your objections while hfi1 was added to drivers/inifiniband?
>
> No idea what you mean.  I'm fine with HFI living in drivers/infiniband,
> although other places for it might not be wrong either.
>
> I'm not fine with HFI exposing the non-verbs interfaces through
> drivers/infiniband/core interface, which as far as I can tell it
> currently does not even do, although some discussions here suggest
> that a future interface should cater to those interface.

I see your point. Latest discussionis or more correct lack of interest
from Intel folks for proposed ABI suggest that it is best to limit this
ABI to verbs objects only. In such way, memcg will fit natively into
the stack.

>
> The real mistake was adding usnic, which has not business in
> drivers/infiniband/ at all.



[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]