Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751442AbWCWJvF (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:51:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751453AbWCWJvF (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:51:05 -0500 Received: from mx.pathscale.com ([64.160.42.68]:44689 "EHLO mx.pathscale.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751442AbWCWJvE (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:51:04 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 9 of 18] ipath - char devices for diagnostics and lightweight subnet management From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rdreier@cisco.com, greg@kroah.com, openib-general@openib.org In-Reply-To: <20060323093713.GB1802@mellanox.co.il> References: <20060323064113.GC9841@mellanox.co.il> <1143103701.6411.21.camel@camp4.serpentine.com> <20060323093713.GB1802@mellanox.co.il> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:51:03 -0800 Message-Id: <1143107463.6411.54.camel@camp4.serpentine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1010 Lines: 27 On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 11:37 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > I understand they do, but they could just use the parts of IB stack and never > notice. No, in some cases they want there to not be an IB stack present, which is not the same thing at all as not caring if it's there. > I think IB stack is modest, as core modules go. I don't understand why you persist on this point. We have a need for an SMA that is not tied to the IB stack. The kernel code to support it is about 500 lines long, about 2% of the driver. > And I don't believe you can save much since as a solution you seem to have > re-implemented the full IB stack in your low level driver: No, we haven't. The IB protocols are implemented in the ib_ipath module, not the core driver.