[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6a775533-bd50-4f57-85f7-125c107bd77a@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 00:19:11 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, pabeni@...hat.com,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@...com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta
Platforms Host Network Interface
> I think its good practice to ensure multiple vendors/drivers can use
> whatever common uAPI or kernel API exists. It can be frustrating when
> some new API gets introduced but then can't be used by another device..
> In most cases thats on the vendors for being slow to respond or work
> with each other when developing the new API.
I tend to agree with the last part. Vendors tend not to reviewer other
vendors patches, and so often don't notice a new API being added which
they could use, if it was a little bit more generic. Also vendors
often seem to focus on their devices/firmware requirements, not an
abstract device, and so end up with something not generic.
As a reviewer, i try to take more notice of new APIs than most other
things, and ideally it is something we should all do.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists