On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 10:19:33AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > [resending to reply-all, sorry Jeff] > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) > <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> So what happens if I have an old application binary, and I run against > >> a new libibverbs without recompiling? > > >> Also it seems that I'm forced to change my source code to be able to > >> compile against new libibverbs? > > > I previously sent an ABI-preserving version of this patch, but it was hated > > by Doug Ledford and (eventually) Jason Gunthorpe. > > > After long discussion (see thread starting here: > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg15951.html), they decided that > > they wanted a clean break that forces both source code and ABI changes, > > which resulted in this patch. > > > I personally don't care which way this goes; I just want the ability to > > have non-enum MTU values. > > So I guess I need to go back and read all of that thread carefully, > but I don't think that silently breaking old binaries and also > breaking sources is the right way to go. What about preserving the > behavior of the existing API / ABI and then adding a new function to > return the size of the maximum datagram for a device?
It is not just a device, but the QP attrs and so on, so there would be quite a few new core functions needed to extend the MTU, and that flows back into the kernel interface too... Jeff's patch doesn't break old binaries, old binaries, running with normal IB MTUs work fine. The structure layouts all stay the same, etc. Old sources will need an update to support non-IB MTUs no matter what, forcing an update via the compiler seems saner then letting them remain silently out of date.. 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
