From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: Further thoughts on uAPI Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:54:50 -0600 Message-ID: <20160426165450.GA3962@obsidianresearch.com> References: <20160420012526.GA25508@obsidianresearch.com> <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373AB044043@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com> <571F78F9.8010401@redhat.com> <20160426145813.GB24104@obsidianresearch.com> <571F9968.3080501@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <571F9968.3080501-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Doug Ledford Cc: Liran Liss , "Hefty, Sean" , OFVWG , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.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