[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230718111508.6f0b9a83@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:15:08 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Device Memory TCP
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:06:29 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> netlink feels like a weird API choice for that, in particular it would
> be really wrong to somehow bind the lifecycle of a netlink object to a
> process.
Netlink is the right API, life cycle of objects can be easily tied to
a netlink socket.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
