From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Fwd: [ofa-general] FW: QLogic vNIC Kernel Submission Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:34:59 +0200 Message-ID: <485803D3.5020505@trash.net> References: <99863D2ED484D449811D97A4C44C9CBD7C50F7@EPEXCH2.qlogic.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, rdreier@cisco.com, Ramachandra K , poornima.kamath@qlogic.com To: Amar Mudrankit Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:39121 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759389AbYFQSfE (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:35:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Amar Mudrankit wrote: > It looks as if my original email was "scrubbed" before it made the > mailing list so I am resending it... > > QLogic has been attempting to submit our virtual NIC (vNIC) driver to > the Linux kernel for several months. We have made changes to the code > based on the feedback we have received over four rounds of > submissions. Among the feedback we received during this process was a > request to alter our code to use a single value per file for > configuration of our driver through sysfs interface. After spending > much time and effort to complete this change to our design we > re-submitted the driver only to receive a response suggesting that we > change once again from this interface to a different API interface > called rtnl_link. Needless to say I am very frustrated with this > process. This new API interface would require substantial changes to > our code. Thats one of the reasons why it should be done before merging it. The other one being that an API can't be removed easily once its in the kernel.