Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] Introduce fwctl subystem

[David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>]

On 3/11/25 2:59 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:23:19PM +0100, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 3/6/25 12:21 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 12:41:35PM -0800, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you imagine this driver/core structure should look like? Who
>>>> will be the top dir maintainer?
>>>
>>> I would set something like this up more like DRM. Every driver
>>> maintainer gets commit rights, some rules about no uAPIs, or at least
>>> other acks before merging uAPI. Use the tree for staging shared
>>> branches.
>>
>> why no uapi? Core driver can have knowledge of h/w resources across all
>> use cases. For example, our core driver supports a generid netlink based
>> dump (no set operations; get and dump only so maybe that should be the
>> restriction?) of all objects regardless of how created -- netdev, ib,
>> etc. -- and with much more detail.
> 
> Because, we want to make sure that UAPI will be aligned with relevant
> subsystems without any way to bypass them.
> 
> Thanks

I hope there will be an open mind on get / dump style introspection apis
here. Devices can work support and work within limited subsystem APIs
and also allow the dumping of full essential and relevant contexts for a
device.

More specifically, I do not see netdev APIs ever recognizing RDMA
concepts like domains and memory regions. For us, everything is relative
to a domain and a region - e.g., whether a queue is created for a netdev
device or an IB QP both use the same common internal APIs.  I would
prefer not to use fwctl for something so basic.