[Rdma-developers] Re: [openib-general] OpenIB and OpenRDMA: Convergence on common RDMAAPIs and ULPs for Linux

[Venkata Jagana]

> I've been advocating rdmaconsortium folks submit patches
> against openib.org for several reasons:

Probably, you meant openrdma.org opensource project but not
a standards setting body (i.e. RDMA consortium -
http://www.rdmaconsortium.org/home) :)

> 1) start with a code base that works
> 2) start with a code base that is already upstream
> 3) get advice/guidance from people who know how to collaborate
>    in an open source environment.
>
> I thought (2) was the most important...but now I have to wonder
> if it's really (3).

You are mistaken. I know people in the OpenRDMA community have
worked with the opensource projects before and they
know how to play and collaborate in an open source environment.
The early part of the work in openrdma is in fact, a true example
of that effort (which you may disagree with but having worked with
several other opensource projects and with OpenIB, we have
solved the issues which other projects including OpenIB have faced)
and the next phase of work which is of course the code development,
a key aspect of broader community effort.

I think we are diverging from the real issue - the fundamental differences
in the views of each community in how we can solve this common problem of
supporting multiple RDMA fabrics, which is what we need to focus on.

>
> > Just having OpenIB subsume control of anything iWARP or impose only
> > DAPL for all RDMA infrastructure because it just happens to be there
today
> > seems rather stifling.  Just stating that some OpenIB steering group is

> > somehow empowered to decide this for Linux is also rather strange.
>
> AFAICT the openib.org steering group doesn't control the content
> of the svn.openib.org source tree. It manages things like web content,
> overall charter, etc ....

Don't agree. If you have read the email thread on this discussion,
you would find that steering committee need to decide whether openIB
should work on including the support for iWARP. Not that I am
supporting this idea -:)

In the opensource world, developers should/will have the freedom to
add what they want to do but of course, the acceptance of their
contributions
into mainline is completely a different matter.

Thanks
Venkat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/attachments/20050531/875af918/attachment.html>