On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 03:59:23PM +0200, Larysa Zaremba wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 04:44:43PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 03:05:19PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <l...@kernel.org> > > > Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 14:23:49 +0300 > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 12:44:33PM +0200, Larysa Zaremba wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 11:21:37AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 02:47:51PM +0200, Larysa Zaremba wrote: > > > >>>> From: Phani R Burra <phani.r.bu...@intel.com> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Libeth will now support control queue setup and configuration APIs. > > > >>>> These are mainly used for mailbox communication between drivers and > > > >>>> control plane. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Make use of the page pool support for managing controlq buffers. > > > > <...> > > > > > >> Module dependencies are as follows: > > > >> > > > >> libeth_rx and libeth_pci do not depend on other modules. > > > >> libeth_cp depends on both libeth_rx and libeth_pci. > > > >> idpf directly uses libeth_pci, libeth_rx and libeth_cp. > > > >> ixd directly uses libeth_cp and libeth_pci. > > > > > > > > You can do whatever module architecture for netdev devices, but if you > > > > plan to expose it to RDMA devices, I will vote against any deep layered > > > > module architecture for the drivers. > > > > > > No plans for RDMA there. > > > > > > Maybe link the whole kernel to one vmlinux then? > > > > It seems that you didn't understand at all about what we are talking > > here. Please use the opportunity that you are working for the same > > company with Larysa and ask her offline. She understood perfectly about > > which modules we are talking. > > > > While I do understand what kind of module relationship you consider > problematic,
Awesome, thanks. > I still struggle to understand why stateless lib hierarchy can be problematic. As I said already, I wrote my remark as a general comment. It is just a matter of time when perfectly working system will be changed to less working one. So when you and Alexander are focused to see what is wrong now, I see what can be in the future. To make it clear, even for people who sentimentally attached to libeth code: I didn't ask to change anything, just tried to understand why you did it like you did it. > The fixes that you linked relate more to problematic resource sharing, of > which > libeth has none, it does not have its own memory or its own threads, this is > just collection of data structures and functions. It is just a matter of time and you will get same issues like I posted. Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, please add some Intel prefix to the modules names, they shouldn't > > > > be called in generic names like libeth, e.t.c > > > > > > Two modules with the same name can't exist within the kernel. libeth was > > > available and I haven't seen anyone wanting to take it. It's not common > > > at all to name a module starting with "lib". > > > > Again, please talk with Larysa. ETH part is problematic in libeth name > > and not LIB. > > > > Thanks
