On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:44:01AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > and have support for named extensions, I think that would be even > better. ie we could define a bunch of new XRC related stuff and > then have some interface to the driver where we ask for the "XRC" > extension (by name with a string) then that would be very handy for > the future.
Considering the fairly small community I'm not sure this much complexity has a payoff? uDAPL already has an API like that and I'm not sure it has done much for usability. As long as the version number in the ibv_context is increasing and not branching then I think it is OK. 0 = what we have now. 1 = + XRC, 2 = +XRC+ummunotify, etc. Drivers 0 out the function pointers they do not support. I think getting the XRC stuff sorted is pretty important, it would be nice to keep it tight.. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
