From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ilya Lesokhin Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/6] tls: Add generic NIC offload infrastructure Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:23:03 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20171218171010.GB6823@nanopsycho> <20171219103010.GC1928@nanopsycho> <20171220.111208.1328340432834146497.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "jiri@resnulli.us" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "davejwatson@fb.com" , "tom@herbertland.com" , "hannes@stressinduktion.org" , Aviad Yehezkel , "Liran Liss" To: David Miller , Boris Pismenny Return-path: Received: from mail-ve1eur01on0076.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.1.76]:12392 "EHLO EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751684AbdLTQXG (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:23:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20171220.111208.1328340432834146497.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: >=20 > > Dave, would you prefer to get the driver patches that use this infra > > before the infra? >=20 > The arguments you present are silly. >=20 > In order to analyze any proposed API, the users of it must be presented f= or the > reviewers to see as well. >=20 > Logically, you must have tried to make use of the APIs to see how well th= ey > work and are usable for at least one such user, right? Right, we agree. >=20 > Therefore, the use case exists, and you must present it alongside the API > proposal. >=20 > Whether you provide the API addition patches and the user in the same pat= ch > series, or a separate one, doesn't really matter. What is important is t= hat this > is accessible to the reviewer at the same time. Note that we did provide a user in an accessible place. https://github.com/Mellanox/tls-offload/tree/tls_device_v3 The link was at the bottom of the cover letter. We just feel that the code there is not yet ready for upstream submission, = and it might have conflicts with other stuff submitted by Mellanox. Would it be better if we submitted the mlx5e TLS support as an RFC alongsid= e the TLS Infrastructure patches?