Taking an interface because it has a user base, and then ignoring that user base is just plain idiotic.
If you want to design your own RDMA interface do so. But changing DAT to meet your whims rather than actual code requirements makes no sense. If you can't come up with something that remains acceptable to the broader community of DAT users then you should refrain from using the "dat_" symbols and their already established meanings. When there *is* a requirement, the DAT community is willing to work out a solution that will be acceptable to Linux *and* developers for other operating systems. On 6/30/05, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could you please stop that comitte crap? > > James, what do you think about doing an s/DAT/RDMA/ and s/dat/rdma/ > on the code so we can stop this endless mess? In the end it won't > look like dat anyway, and the sooner why make that absolutely clear > that less idiocy like this is going to happen. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
