<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2654.45">
<TITLE>RE: [openib-general] roland-uverbs: CQ consumer index</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hi,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>We thought about it a lot and decided to have two different drivers but with as much as possible code sharing.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Since realy most code is the same and we did not wanted to duplicate logic and bug fixes.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The way we did the code sharing is not complaint with Linux but I think one can come up with another method that will enable to have different code only to the objects that are required to be different from HW interface.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Tziporet </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Roland Dreier [<A HREF="mailto:roland@topspin.com">mailto:roland@topspin.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 9:33 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: Libor Michalek</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Cc: openib-general@openib.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: [openib-general] roland-uverbs: CQ consumer index</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> Libor> Without knowing how much code difference there will be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> Libor> between Tavor and Arbel native mode, I'm wondering if it</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> Libor> makes sense at some point to have seperate hardware drivers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> Libor> for the two parts? Just curious what the your thinking is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> Libor> on the value of maintaining the same code base for the two.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I've gone back and forth between whether it's better to split mthca</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>into two drivers or keep it as one driver that supports both Tavor and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Arbel modes. A lot of the code is common but there are also a lot of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>differences. Right now I think keeping one driver is a little better</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>because it's fairly easy to keep the Arbel-specific code in mthca, and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>I keep coming up with places where it would be very awkward to turn</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the common code into a library. However I've gone back and forth in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>my mind a bunch of times so we may end up with two drivers before it's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>all over.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> - R.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>_______________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>openib-general mailing list</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>openib-general@openib.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><A HREF="http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general" TARGET="_blank">http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general</A></FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>To unsubscribe, please visit <A HREF="http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general" TARGET="_blank">http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general</A></FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>