[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9cc7127f-8674-43bc-b4d7-b1c4c2d96fed@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:23:28 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, Leonid Bloch <lbloch@...dia.com>,
Itay Avraham <itayavr@...dia.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
Aron Silverton <aron.silverton@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc driver
On 3/4/24 9:02 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 01:57:35PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>> I also like this, I don't want the outcome of this discussion to be
>> that only mlx5ctl gets merged. I want all the HW that has this problem
>> to have support in the mainline kernel.
>
> To this end here is my proposal to move forward with a new
> mini-subsystem to provide rules for this common approach. Get the
> existing tools out of hacky unstructured direct hardware access via
> /sys/XX and into a formalized lockdown compatible system. I've talked
> to enough people now to think we have a critical mass.
>
It has been almost 3 weeks and no response (to this and other proposals
in this thread). I have been around Linux long enough to know that
silence is not acceptance.
To me, this seems like a sane start for a new subsystem addressing
challenges with complex, modern devices. To that end:
Acked-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists