Just one further thought on this. At the 9/9 OpenIB SWG Face to Face meeting, the following was discussed and agreed:
Once there is a working MAD layer, there will be a new official gen2 branch with just phase 1 deliverables. Then stable and development branches. Development would add in CM, etc. Does this mean roland_branch is intended to be this branch ? -- Hal -----Forwarded Message----- From: Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [openib-general] [PATCH] Add access into build (Roland's branch) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:13:40 -0400 On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 21:59, Roland Dreier wrote: > -obj-$(CONFIG_INFINIBAND) += legacy/ core/ ulp/ hw/ > +obj-$(CONFIG_INFINIBAND) += legacy/ core/ access/ ulp/ hw/ > > This doesn't really make sense to me. Why do we need a core/ and an > access/ directory? I prefer core/, since it matches drivers/usb/core, > net/core and sound/core already in the kernel tree, and "access layer" > is a bit of jargon that no one not familiar with the history of IB > stacks is going to understand. However if we prefer access/ then I'll > move everything from core/ there. I guess this is temporary too. I don't really care if it is core or access. I just chose access at the time as it was unclear how things would evolve. I'm OK with moving ib_mad (and ib_smi) into core when the time is right. -- Hal _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
