[openib-general] Re: [PATCH] CMA and iWARP

[Tom Tucker]

BTW, along these lines, does anyone have commentary on the netevent
registration patch?

To avoid the impression that this patch falls under the "using IB to get
stuff into netdev that would be vetoed otherwise", I am happy to submit
a patch to netdev directly to avoid sullying OpenIB's good name.

Nonetheless, I'd like to get some feedback, especially if it is "what
are you nuts?!?"

On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:57 -0800, Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 03:53:19PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> >  > Yes, but we need to start somewhere. Until someone submits
> >  > a driver that does all the things you mention, it makes
> >  > sense to move forward with what has been proposed to date.
> > 
> > I agree with this, and overall I am very much in favor of getting
> > iWARP support all the way upstream.
> 
> *nod*
> 
> BTW, this is a message that needs to be repeated regularly until
> iWARP support *is* upstream. The opposite perception is still lingering
> in some places because of discussions from 1 and 2 years ago.
> 
> > The reason I want to take time to make sure that we have the right
> > code before we merge it is that I get the feeling that there may be
> > elements of a) using the IB tree to get changes upstream that would be
> > vetoed on netdev
> 
> Yeah, that has happened before.  And I expect netdev folks might strongly
> object (if they haven't already) to some "sideband" method of managing
> TCP/IP config when TCP/IP is exclusively running on an RNIC (TOE with
> RDMA front-end).  IMHO, that's seems like the "hardest to fix" issue
> so everyone is happy. Most of the other details can be negotiated.
> 
> > and b) trying to get openib and the kernel community
> > to accept code just so a vendor can meet a product marketing deadline.
> 
> TTM via kernel.org?  BWHAHAHA! :^)
> 
> Sorry, I can't take that serious. :)
> 
> > BTW, upon reflection, the best idea for moving this forward might be
> > to push the Ammasso driver along with the rest of the iWARP patches,
> > so that there's some more context for review.  Just because a vendor
> > is out of business is no reason for Linux not to have a driver for a
> > piece of hardware.
> 
> "Exactly." says the co-maintainer of the parisc-linux port. :)
> 
> thanks,
> grant
> _______________________________________________
> openib-general mailing list
> openib-general at openib.org
> http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
> 
> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general