On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 11:37 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I understand they do, but they could just use the parts of IB stack and never
> notice.
No, in some cases they want there to not be an IB stack present, which
is not the same thing at all as not caring if it's there.
> I think IB stack is modest, as core modules go.
I don't understand why you persist on this point. We have a need for an
SMA that is not tied to the IB stack. The kernel code to support it is
about 500 lines long, about 2% of the driver.
> And I don't believe you can save much since as a solution you seem to have
> re-implemented the full IB stack in your low level driver:
No, we haven't. The IB protocols are implemented in the ib_ipath
module, not the core driver.
<b
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
