On 6/10/2015 1:04 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote: >> Not in the patches themselves but in the general issue when a PR changes. >> >> Do you think this needs addressing or are things fine as they are now ? > > IMO, I think it needs addressing in terms of "can the proposed netlink > architecture and design accommodate this > sort of request in the future?" We shouldn't design in a limitation up > front. I don't see anything in the current approach that would cause an > issue. There would likely be a need for new messages and attributes.
The current proposal is focused around the PR attributes/styles currently used in the kernel. The case I can see is if in future a new attribute is added to the PR netlink API. How is that handled ? Can user space say it can't service a request ? That seems a little different from the no PR case. -- 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
