On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 09:33:18PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: >> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Jason Gunthorpe >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:10:45AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote: >> > >> >> Jason, ping, it's fair to require that if you made a review argument >> >> against >> >> the design done here and we've responded about a week ago, saying why >> >> this design is valid (e.g goes along the 10y old IB stack udata mechanism >> >> and >> >> such) -- you would comment on the response and not leave it in the air. >> > >> > Was it not clear? Yann and I asked to see the user space side before >> > reviewing this series further. >> >> Jason, you (U2 BTW) play really, really hard - refusing to say **one** >> word on your approach towards the built-in udata mechanism for uverbs >> which I asked you to comment on.
> And I asked to see the user space side and you have angrily refused > every time. AFAIR I never ever refused to show any piece of code which went under my hands towards Linux to any-one. > So I guess we are both playing hard. I disagree, you act as sort of being the boss here, stating every now and then your preferences and way of engineering things as the ultimate guidelines for Linux and/or RDMA engineering. > FWIW, your comments on udata seemed compelling Good to hear > but I want to see the whole solution before saying I'm OK with it. go look, not the final cut but should be close to what we'll submit https://github.com/matanb10/libibverbs timestamp-v0 https://github.com/matanb10/libmlx4 timestamp-v0 -- 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
