Re: [RFC] XRC upstream merge reboot

Roland Dreier
2011-05-18T19:22:52Z

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Hefty, Sean <sean.hefty-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> As long as the version number in the ibv_context is increasing and not
>> branching then I think it is OK. 0 = what we have now. 1 = + XRC, 2 =
>> +XRC+ummunotify, etc. Drivers 0 out the function pointers they do not
>> support.
>
> I was thinking more along this line, but I can see how using a named extension could be useful for OFED or vendor specific extensions that aren't part of the upstream libibverbs.  (Whether _that_ is useful is another matter, but it seems to be the world that we're in anyway.)
>

Exactly... we seem to be in a world of branches, and I do think that
decoupling independent extensions is better for everyone.

- R.