On May 29, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Weiny, Ira <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> struct bus_attr { >>> char *domain_id; >>> char *bus_id; >>> char *device_id; >>> char *function_id; >>> }; >> >> Should this be "struct pci_bus_attr", just to future-proof us a bit? I.e., >> more >> types of busses may be available in the future. > > Should this be a "void *" to a generic device structure which could then be > "struct pci_bus_attr" or some other future bus structure?
Fair point. Do we have access to "struct pci_bus_attr" in userspace? If we go this route, we'll need another enum to indicate what the (void*) is (or which member of a union to use blah blah blah). >> Should we indicate the transport layer here? (Ethernet, IB, Omnipath, GNI, >> ...etc.) > > Probably should. But perhaps that was more what Sean had in mind for > "protocol"? That's kinda what I was hoping for (i.e., I don't know if "protocol" is relevant -- but "transport" is definitely useful). -- Jeff Squyres [email protected] _______________________________________________ ofiwg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/mailman/listinfo/ofiwg
