From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCHv12 1/3] rdmacg: Added rdma cgroup controller Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:16:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20160831211618.GA12660@htj.duckdns.org> References: <1472632647-1525-1-git-send-email-pandit.parav@gmail.com> <1472632647-1525-2-git-send-email-pandit.parav@gmail.com> <61101e8b-5776-c0bc-b3ea-d8b984eebabf@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <61101e8b-5776-c0bc-b3ea-d8b984eebabf@mellanox.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matan Barak Cc: Parav Pandit , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, lizefan@huawei.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, dledford@redhat.com, hch@lst.de, liranl@mellanox.com, sean.hefty@intel.com, jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, haggaie@mellanox.com, corbet@lwn.net, james.l.morris@oracle.com, serge@hallyn.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 06:07:30PM +0300, Matan Barak wrote: > Currently, there are some discussions regarding the RDMA ABI. The current > proposed approach (after a lot of discussions in the OFVWG) is to have > driver dependent object types rather than the fixed set of IB object types > we have today. > AFAIK, some vendors might want to use the RDMA subsystem for a different > fabrics which has a different set of objects. > You could see RFCs for such concepts both from Mellanox and Intel on the > linux-rdma mailing list. > > Saying that, maybe we need to make the resource types a bit more flexible > and dynamic. That'd be back to square one and Christoph was dead against it too, so... Thanks. -- tejun