[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eb945338-915a-64cd-52c5-3d818ba45667@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2023 15:54:33 -0700
From: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Pavan Kumar Linga <pavan.kumar.linga@...el.com>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
shiraz.saleem@...el.com, emil.s.tantilov@...el.com,
willemb@...gle.com, decot@...gle.com, joshua.a.hay@...el.com,
sridhar.samudrala@...el.com, Alan Brady <alan.brady@...el.com>,
Madhu Chittim <madhu.chittim@...el.com>,
Phani Burra <phani.r.burra@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 01/15] virtchnl: add virtchnl
version 2 ops
On 4/3/23 3:20 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 15:01:55 -0700 Shannon Nelson wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/virtchnl2.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/virtchnl2.h
>>
>> If this is to be a standardized interface, why is this header buried in
>> the driver specific directory instead of something more accessible like
>> include/linux/idpf?
>
> The noise about this driver being "a standard" is quite confusing.
>
> Are you considering implementing any of it?
>
> I haven't heard of anyone who is yet, so I thought all this talk of
> a standard is pretty empty from the technical perspective :(
Just that they seem to be pushing it to become a standard through OASIS,
as they infer by pointing to their OASIS docs in this patch, and I was
under the (mistaken?) impression that this would be the One Driver for
any device that implemented the HW/FW interface, kinda like virtio. If
that's true, then why would the driver live under the Intel directory?
sln
Powered by blists - more mailing lists