On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:51:42AM +0300, Matan Barak wrote:

All recent proposals of the new ABI schema deals with extending the 
flexibility of the current schema by letting drivers define their specific 
types, actions, attributes, etc. Even more than that, the dispatching 
starts from the driver and it chooses if it wants to use the common RDMA 
core layer or have it's own wise implementation instead.
Some drivers might even prefer not to implement the current verbs types.
These decisions were made in the OFVWG meetings.

OFVWG meetings have absolutely zero relevance for Linux development.
More "flexibility" for drivers just means giving up on designing a
coherent API and leaving it to drivers authors to add crap to their
own drivers.  That's a major step backwards.

Sounds reasonable, but what about drivers which ignore the common code and 
implement it in their own way? What about drivers which don't support the 
standard RDMA types at all?

They should not be using the code in drivers/infiniband.  usnic is such
an example of a driver that should never have been added in it's current
form.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html