[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160415210333.GD10689@leon.nu>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 00:03:33 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...n.nu>
To: "Woodruff, Robert J" <robert.j.woodruff@...el.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"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
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:44:48PM +0000, Woodruff, Robert J wrote:
> > 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.
The discussion here is much broader than conversion of PSM interface.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists