Re: [RFC PATCH 0/12] drm/fabric: vendor-neutral topology infrastructure for scale-up accelerator interconnects

[Jiri Pirko]

Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 01:45:15PM +0200, ksinyuk@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 02:35:16PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Using generic netlink instead of sysfs for this makes a lot of sense,
>> but it may be a bit odd to use it outside the networking area.
>> I've been struggling with the same in another non-networking use-case
>> as well.
>
>Agreed, and the series shows the friction. The namespace handling is
>nominal, and CAP_NET_ADMIN as the mutation gate is another borrowed
>part of the model. I went into that in more detail in the reply to
>Jason.
>
>> - One character device per registered instance, not one global family.
>>   Access control is the file: udev rules, ACLs, an fd passed into
>>   a container.
>
>The fd-based access and event model addresses real problems with one
>global family and one multicast group.
>
>The main question is what the CTLV instance would represent. A fabric
>can span multiple devices and has its own lifetime. An endpoint can also
>be detached from a fabric with fabric-id 0 and continue to exist. A
>character device per accelerator would not provide the same global view
>as the current family.

CTVL is supposed to be just "transport". So however you use it is up to
you.


>
>Can a CTLV instance represent a multi-device fabric or the global
>fabric registry rather than one physical device?

Yes, whoever creates the ctlv instance is in charge of the lifecycle.


>
>> Would this make sense to use for you?
>
>In principle, yes. I cannot base this series on an out-of-tree pre-RFC,
>but the fabric, endpoint, port and peer model is separate from the
>current serialization.
>
>Changing transports would be more than regeneration, so I will read the
>draft before saying more.
>
>Thanks,
>Konstantin