> Quoting r. Steve Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] iw_cxgb3 - misc cleanup and fixes > > On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 08:51 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > Also I agree with MST, I would like to see the core/ subdirectory die > > > > completely. > > > > > > > > > > ok ok...I'll kill the subdir... > > > > It's not just the directory BTW. Stuff like building completions in > > t3_cqe format and then reformatting to ib_wc seems to be much more confusing > > (and some of it is actually on datapath). > > The t3_cqe format is built BY THE HW.
I understand, I did not get that. But for example create_read_req_cqe builds it in software. It could build ib_wc instead. ... > > Having to wade through 3 driver-specific layers of abstractions just > > because I want to > > for example change API in ib_verbs.h and need to update all drivers will be > > very taxing. I understand your design calls for 2 layers, but at least the > > API exposed > > by code in drivers/net is fairly small, while cxio_wr.h declares 27 > > structures > > which seem to just duplicate ib_verbs.h. > > cxio_wr.h is hw format. You want me to change ib_verbs.h to make WRs > and CQEs align with Chelsio hardware? No, but it need not be part of interface. The reason I was confused is because you seem to create an extra copy e.g. for t3_cqe. cxio_poll_cq currently creates an intermediate copy of the completion on the stack, I think it could format ib_wc directly instead. -- MST _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
