[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230718111508.6f0b9a83@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:15:08 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: 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>, David Ahern
<dsahern@...nel.org>, Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Device Memory TCP
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists