[openib-general] Re: [PATCH] Header file Changes for iWARP Support

[Tom Tucker]

On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 11:34 -0800, Sean Hefty wrote:
> Tom Tucker wrote:
> > +struct iw_cm_verbs;
> >  struct ib_device {
> >  	struct device                *dma_device;
> >  
> > @@ -840,6 +844,8 @@
> >  
> >  	u32                           flags;
> >  
> > +	struct iw_cm_verbs*           iwcm;
> > +
> 
> Does anyone object to adding this to ib_device?  I'm not thrilled about this, 
> but I don't see another alternative, and I'm not sure it's any worse than having 
> a 'process_mad' function.
> 
> Maybe we need a more generic way of providing transport/device specific 
> extensions?  Something like:
> 
> struct ib_device {
> 	...
> 	union {
> 		struct iw_verbs		*iw;
> 		struct ib_verbs		*ib;
> 	} ext_verbs;

I like this... It is consistent with the CMA as well. 

> 	...
> };
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> - Sean