From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Wise Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] Provider Methods and Data Structures Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 10:50:48 -0600 Message-ID: <1165251048.32724.37.camel@stevo-desktop> References: <20061202224917.27014.15424.stgit@dell3.ogc.int> <20061202224947.27014.59189.stgit@dell3.ogc.int> <1165147639.3233.211.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1165249706.32724.35.camel@stevo-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Arjan van de Ven , netdev@vger.kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from rrcs-24-153-217-226.sw.biz.rr.com ([24.153.217.226]:60864 "EHLO smtp.opengridcomputing.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937119AbWLDQu5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 11:50:57 -0500 To: Roland Dreier In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 08:45 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: > > Roland, I think at one time we were talking about changing the Core to > > better handle this? Either with attributes/capabilities that the low > > level driver can set, or by set these method ptrs to NULL and the core > > should handle it in the wrapper function... > > Yes, it would make sense to change the midlayer so we have different > sets of mandatory functions for IB and iWARP drivers. For example, > the iwcm functions probably should be mandatory for iWARP devices, right? > Yes. The iWARP devices must all support the iwcm methods for sure.