[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <35f3ec37-11fe-19c8-9d6f-ae5a789843cb@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 12:20:59 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 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>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Device Memory TCP
On 7/18/23 12:15 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 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.
That is an untuitive connection -- memory references, h/w queues, flow
steering should be tied to the datapath socket, not a control plane socket.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists