Re: Further thoughts on uAPI

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

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:38:00PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> We're talking about two different things.  I had the actual user space
> API on my mind when I wrote what I wrote (aka, libibverbs).

This will become very confusing if we don't focus on one thing..

How to fix libibverbs's API is a totally different problem, only very
loosely related to fixing the uAPI. Whatever new uAPI we come up with
must support current libibverbs with no loss during translation.

Tackling a verbs 2.0 along with the uAPI project is too big, IMHO.

It is pretty obvious to me we don't want to retain the current near
1:1 mapping of libverbs calls and kernel calls.

> There are only a few options for how to expose these things to user
> space (using the example I gave as a further talking point):

AFAIK Mellanox is working on benchmarking these options, so perhaps we
will have some data someday.

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