Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 06:09:09 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
Cc: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@intel.com>, dledford@redhat.com,
        linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] IB/hfi1: Remove write() and use ioctl() for user
 access
Message-ID: <20160418130909.GD11508@infradead.org>
References: <20160414153727.6387.96381.stgit@scvm10.sc.intel.com>
 <20160414164550.GC6247@obsidianresearch.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160414164550.GC6247@obsidianresearch.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1101
Lines: 23

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:45:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:41:35AM -0700, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> > This patch series removes the write() interface for user access in favor of an
> > ioctl() based approach. This is in response to the complaint that we had
> > different handlers for write() and writev() doing different things and expecting
> > different types of data. See:
> 
> I think we should wait on applying these patches until we globally sort out
> what to do with the rdma uapi.
> 
> It just doesn't make alot of sense for drivers to have their own personal
> char devices. :(

I looked through the patches I tend to disagree - while we should wait
for a global UAPI for anything that's actually RDMA/verbs related these
seem to be misc little bits specific to the driver that have no business
in any sort of generic RDMA API.

> A second char dev for the eeprom? How is that OK? Why aren't you using
> the I2C layer for this?

... but this is a really good question, although the right layer to
plug this in would be the eeprom code in drivers/nvmem/