[openib-general] Re: [PATCH 0 of 20] [RFC] ipath - PathScale InfiniPath driver
greg at kroah.com
Tue Jan 3 09:27:32 PST 2006
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 05:40:50PM -0800, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 16:10 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > But we (the kernel community), don't really accept that as a valid
> > reason to accept this kind of code, sorry.
> Fair enough. I'd like some guidance in that case. Some of our ioctls
> access the hardware more or less directly, while others do things like
> read or reset counters.
> Which of these kinds of operations are appropriate to retain as ioctls,
> in your eyes, and which are best converted to sysfs or configfs
Idealy, nothing should be new ioctls. But in the end, it all depends on
exactly what you are trying to do with each different one.
> As an example, take a look at ipath_sma_ioctl. It seems to me that
> receiving or sending subnet management packets ought to remain as
> ioctls, while getting port or node data could be turned into sysfs
> attributes. Lane identification could live in configfs. If you think
> otherwise, please let me know what's more appropriate.
I really don't know what the subnet management stuff involves, sorry.
But doesn't the open-ib layer handle that all for you already?
More information about the general