Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:43:24 -0700 | From | Jon Mason <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v2 1/2] PCI-Express Non-Transparent Bridge Support |
| |
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:02:25PM -0400, chetan loke wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Jon Mason <jon.mason@intel.com> wrote: > > > > I don't see the benefit of having the driver in staging. Any vendors > > who would notice the ntb driver in staging would be sitting on these > > mailing lists and hopefully have planety of comments on the design. > > Stashing the driver in staging while waiting for these comments (which > > may never come) doesn't seem the best course of action. > > > > I thought that since others are talking about it then may be there is > some WIP code for foo-NTB. Seems like that's not the case. So no need > to stage. > > Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't apps just open a socket and route > data via ntb_vir_eth_dev? So I don't see an ABI breakage issue and > hence nothing would prevent us from changing the kernel parts(for > accommodating some foo-NTB part) in future.
The virtual ethernet device (patch #2) would allow for a generic way of passing data to the remote side. The only issue would be changing how it is encoded in the shared buffer.
> It may not be a bad idea to prefix intel-specific(if any) > ntb_structs/variables/logic with the 'intc'(Intel ticker or pick your > string) keyword.
The Intel specific things are current pre-pended with "xeon" or "bwd".
Thanks, Jon
> > Chetan Loke
| |