netdev - Re: one vs. two drivers for an iWARP-capable Ethernet NIC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <adabqle4ga0.fsf@cisco.com>
Date:	Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:45:59 -0800
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	"Leonid Grossman" <Leonid.Grossman@...erion.com>
Cc:	"Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@...ox.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<openib-general@...nib.org>
Subject: Re: one vs. two drivers for an iWARP-capable Ethernet NIC

 > Jeff/Roland/all,
 > What is the preferred submission driver model for an iWARP-capable
 > Ethernet NIC - two separate drivers (Ethernet and OpenFabrics) that
 > interact with each other, or a single driver that supports both
 > OpenFabrics and Ethernet interfaces?

Let's not use the term "OpenFabrics interface."  Let's just call the
two interfaces RDMA and ethernet (or L2 NIC if you like).

Anyway my preference would be for the cleanest possible driver.  If
your driver is not naturally divided into two separate parts then it's
fine to have a unified driver.  We already have examples of both:
amso1100 is unified and the Chelsio T3 driver is split.

 - R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html