On 05/11/2013 11:05, Yann Droneaud wrote:
Thanks Matan for carrying on the patchset.
I've quite the same patchset, but the other way around, eg. enabling
the flow steering verbs after cleanup on the new ABI. I thought it would
make more sense this way. Would you like me to send the patchset this
way, with my others patches to rename the function, which was dropped
from my latest attempt in order to squeeze the patchset to bare minimal ?
good! lets do that asap, please make sure to mark the series as V2 and
list the changes from V1 in the cover-letter
Regarding the extensible framework, I haven't found time to design a new
proposal for the interface.
I keep in my mind that something built around writev(2) (struct iovec)
and/or cmsg(3) / netlink(3) would be preferable to ease sending
multipart command to uverbs subsystem.
Well, we do want the solution to use the uverbs framework and not
involve another paradigm for user/kernel verbs interaction. With this in
mind && as Matan and Tzahi wrote you earlier on the list, we do think
the current proposal is good enough to carry on with.
BTW, I think we should drop the patch that adds the comp_mask in the
header. As you wrote in a previous mail, a comp_mask could be present
in the "provider" part of the command. This make handling of comp_mask
from header very different, very specific, while it's not, since there
could be more "comp_mask": one in command, one in provider, one in
response and one in the provider response parts. So I would prefer not
have the command comp_mask being treated differently than the other.
makes sense.
Matan and Or.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
