Re: [RFC] XRC upstream merge reboot

Jason Gunthorpe
2011-05-18T17:02:26Z

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:44:01AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:

> and have support for named extensions, I think that would be even
> better. ie we could define a bunch of new XRC related stuff and
> then have some interface to the driver where we ask for the "XRC"
> extension (by name with a string) then that would be very handy for
> the future.

Considering the fairly small community I'm not sure this much
complexity has a payoff? uDAPL already has an API like that and I'm
not sure it has done much for usability.

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 think getting the XRC stuff sorted is pretty important, it would
be nice to keep it tight..

Jason