[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9C6B67F36DCAFC479B1CF6A967258A8C7DDAAE43@ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 17:44:48 +0000
From: "Woodruff, Robert J" <robert.j.woodruff@...el.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...n.nu>
CC: "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
"Dalessandro, Dennis" <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
"dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/7] IB/hfi1: Remove write() and use ioctl() for user
access
> I fear it's kfabrics, which is an entirely crackpot idea and a total non-starter, but for some reason Intel and their buddies keep wasting time on it.
What is being discussed her is not kfabrics. That is a totally different out of kernel pathfinding project at this point.
What is being discussed here is how to best solve the write/writev issue with the PSM interface. The code submitted was to move
to IOCTL instead, but people like Jason have suggested routing the IOCTLs through the verbs layer instead.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists