[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zf2n02q0GevGdS-Z@C02YVCJELVCG>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:46:27 -0400
From: Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
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 Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 09:24:29AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 3/22/24 1:32 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > It's the middle of the merge window, not much we can actually do and
> > this patch series itself couldn't be applied as-is, so it's hard to see
> > what could have happened on my end...
> >
>
> The proposal was sent a week before the end of the last development
> cycle, and I believe the intent was to motivate discussion around a
> concrete proposal to converge on an acceptable solution before sending
> patches.
>
> On your end, what would be helpful is either a simple yes this seems
> reasonable or no you don't like it for reasons X, Y, and Z.
>
Well said, David.
I would totally support doing something like this in a fairly generic
way that could be leveraged/instantiated by drivers that will allow
communication/inspection of hardware blocks in the datapath. There are
lots of different ways this could go, so feedback on this would help get
us all moving in the right direction.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists