Per my previous email, forgive my top reply... RDMA_NODE_VENDOR would be great, actually. Should I work up a patch for that?
Sent from my phone. No type good. On Apr 4, 2013, at 10:32 AM, "Hefty, Sean" <sean.he...@intel.com> wrote: >> The reason we're asking for these IBV_*_USNIC enums now -- before we've >> submitted the driver -- is because we're targeting getting our driver >> included >> in RHEL 6.5. There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue here: they'll accept >> our >> patches for a new hardware driver while that driver is being worked upstream. >> But they (rightfully) won't accept patches to IB core and libibverbs until >> they've been vetted by the community. Hence, even though our driver is >> slowly >> working its way through QA and not available yet, we wanted to submit these >> new >> enums upstream for community approval so that they can be included in RHEL >> 6.5. > > I understand the issue. > > In the end, these are kernel changes with no actual users of those changes... > But then they are also just small changes to a framework... > > Just thinking aloud here, but what if we added 'RDMA_NODE_VENDOR' instead? > Then other fields, such as transport, become vendor specific. > > - Sean -- 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
