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

[Sean Hefty]

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;
	...
};

Thoughts?

- Sean