From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hal Rosenstock Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Sending kernel pathrecord query to user cache server Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:51:51 -0400 Message-ID: <55789557.3080100@dev.mellanox.co.il> References: <1433861837-26177-1-git-send-email-kaike.wan@intel.com> <55783D84.6040709@dev.mellanox.co.il> <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373A8FE6677@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com> <55786ACC.4070704@dev.mellanox.co.il> <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373A8FE680D@ORSMSX109.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373A8FE680D-P5GAC/sN6hkd3b2yrw5b5LfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Hefty, Sean" Cc: "Wan, Kaike" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 6/10/2015 1:04 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote: >> Not in the patches themselves but in the general issue when a PR changes. >> >> Do you think this needs addressing or are things fine as they are now ? > > IMO, I think it needs addressing in terms of "can the proposed netlink architecture and design accommodate this > sort of request in the future?" We shouldn't design in a limitation up front. I don't see anything in the current approach that would cause an issue. There would likely be a need for new messages and attributes. The current proposal is focused around the PR attributes/styles currently used in the kernel. The case I can see is if in future a new attribute is added to the PR netlink API. How is that handled ? Can user space say it can't service a request ? That seems a little different from the no PR case. -- 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