On Apr 5, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
> I think the idea is that without context, it's hard to know if adding
> these enums makes sense or not. And I'm sorry but I'm not that
> sympathetic to "my code isn't ready but you have to take this
> out-of-context patch so I can meet Red Hat's
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. Are you asking us to submit our
> known-buggy-and-not-yet-complete driver just to get two enums approved?
I think the idea is that without context, it's hard to know if adding
these enums
> RDMA_NODE_VENDOR would be great, actually. Should I work up a patch for that?
I would prefer taking this approach and would be fine accepting such a change.
Roland, do you have an opinion on this?
- Sean
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a
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" wrote:
>> The reason we're asking for these IBV_*_USNIC enums now -- before we've
>> submit
Forgive the top reply; I'm actually on vacation this week and currently only
have email access on my phone...
I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. Are you asking us to submit our
known-buggy-and-not-yet-complete driver just to get two enums approved?
Sent from my phone. No type good.
On
Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> Sure. For a little background, the 2nd-generation Cisco VIC has been
> available
> since last year (IIRC): http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10277
> /prod_module_series_home.html. It's a converged 10G Ethernet adapter
> available > in a variety of form fac
> 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 be
On Apr 3, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Jeff, I agree with Sean, there's not much point to review/discuss
> these general/pre-step patches without seeing some actual device
> specific kernel (if there are such or user space code if there aren't
> any kernel ones) code. e.g you can submit
On Apr 3, 2013, at 10:49 AM, "Hefty, Sean" wrote:
> Can we get a better patch description?
>
> Maybe mention something about the NIC? Does it support all verbs? Is it for
> kernel users or just user space? Does this simply export a raw ethernet
> interface?
Sure. For a little background,
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote:
>> Per off-list conversation with Roland, add some new enums for the
>> Cisco Ethernet Virtual NIC (it's not an RNIC/iWARP device, so it
>> doesn't fit in the same category as RDMA_NODE_RNIC /
>> RDMA_TRANSPORT_IWARP). "USNIC" = "Userspace NIC".
> Per off-list conversation with Roland, add some new enums for the
> Cisco Ethernet Virtual NIC (it's not an RNIC/iWARP device, so it
> doesn't fit in the same category as RDMA_NODE_RNIC / RDMA_TRANSPORT_IWARP).
>
> "USNIC" = "Userspace NIC".
Can we get a better patch description?
Maybe mention
11 matches
Mail list logo
