Re: Kernel fast memory registration API proposal [RFC]

[Sagi Grimberg <sagig-LDSdmyG8hGV8YrgS2mwiifqBs+8SCbDb@public.gmane.org>]

> I'm really disappointed by the negative emails on this subject..

Jason,

I'm really not trying to be negative. I'm hearing you out, and I agree
with a lot of what you have to say. I just don't agree with all of it.

You are right, ULPs do the same thing, the same wrong thing of
maintaining a fallback policy for memory registration. We should have
only one way - FRWR.

Which drivers doesn't support FRWR that we need to do other things?
ipath - depracated
mthca - soon to be deprecated
ehca - Not sure what is going on there. they only have phys_mr
        anyway, which just lost its only caller in the kernel
amso1100 - git log shows almost zero activity with this driver
usnic - who is completely not interesting to the kernel ULPs because:

int usnic_ib_post_send(struct ib_qp *ibqp, struct ib_send_wr *wr,
                                 struct ib_send_wr **bad_wr)
{
         usnic_dbg("\n");
         return -EINVAL;
}

So my point is, it's a great deal of effort to combine these
in any API that we come up with for a bunch of esoteric drivers.
Let's just let them die on their own, please.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html