From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266539AbUBESk6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:40:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266540AbUBESk6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:40:58 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([65.200.24.183]:26601 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266539AbUBESk4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:40:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:40:33 -0800 From: Greg KH To: "Tillier, Fabian" Cc: "Hefty, Sean" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Troy Benjegerdes , "Woodruff, Robert J" , "Magro, Bill" , "Woodruff, Robert J" , infiniband-general@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Infiniband-general] Getting an Infiniband access layer in the Linux kernel Message-ID: <20040205184033.GB13434@kroah.com> References: <08628CA53C6CBA4ABAFB9E808A5214CB01DB96A4@mercury.infiniconsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <08628CA53C6CBA4ABAFB9E808A5214CB01DB96A4@mercury.infiniconsys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 01:31:45PM -0500, Tillier, Fabian wrote: > > Are you suggesting that if there is any abstraction, the code will never > be accepted? Or rather that the abstraction better be correct? I'm > hoping for the latter, however please clarify. The kernel has its own abstractions that seem to be working quite well for all different types of platforms. There is no need for you to create your own, just for a driver subsystem. If you have found any problems with the current locks please let the entire kernel community benefit from your changes, and not relegate them to a infiniband-only section of the kernel. So yes, if you add your own versions of spinlocks and atomic_t types, your code will be rejected, among other things :) thanks, greg k-h