Re: [ANNOUNCE] Shared Topic Branch For ABI Changes

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 06:17:18PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote:
> > Doug was ambivalent, Steve was against. There was a concern the natual
> > release schedual of the parts was different, so why link them.
> > 
> > My counter was that isn't really important, the goal is is to reduce
> > developer time when working on this mess.
> > 
> > Since we are looking at changing *everything* developer time seems
> > more important right now.
> 
> FWIW, I moved the librdmacm and libibacm into a single guthub
> project.  Even if we don't share a single git tree, this enables
> multiple maintainers for the code.  I would really like to see
> libibcm dropped entirely, and think libibverbs and librdmacm should
> merge.

+1

> In the past I would have been in favor of more closely associating
> libibumad with libibverbs, but now that OPA uses IB-like management,
> I'm not so sure.  I think OPA management could be done outside of
> any verbs emulation.  Ira might know for sure.

IIRC OPA still uses /dev/umad. I suspect libmad/umad needs to grow new
structures and constants primarily.

I would call the combined repo 'rdma-plumbing' or something, intended
to cover the user space side for all the kernel interfaces.

I saw libfabric was having success with this model - is that accurate?

Jason
--
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