[ewg] RE: [ofw] SC'09 BOF - Meeting notes

[Bob Souza]

Woodruff, Robert J wrote:
> Sujal wrote,
> 
>> [Sujal] It was disclosed at the BOD meeting that there is no defined
>> process for inclusion of new features in OFED releases, rather it is
>> based on discussions and consensus that happen in EWG meetings.  This
>> was the basis for acceptance of the modifications to the motion at BOD
>> and  the subsequent voting and acceptance (14 voted in favor, 2 opposed)
> 
> Let me clarify what I said at the board meeting when it was asked if there
> was a documented process for including code in OFED. They answer was no,
> there is not a document that defines the process.
> That does not mean that we do not have a process, just that it is not
> documented. I think that if you ask people in the EWG, they will tell you
> that we have agreed to submit code upstream before including it in OFED.
> I think that there have been and are sometimes exceptions to this, but
> we would like to follow that process in general whenever possible.
> 
> 
>> [Sujal] Once again there is no defined and accepted process in the EWG
>> about air time etc, and EWG needs to work on implementing the
>> instructions from the BOD as best as it can using current practices -
>> which is discussions and consensus within EWG and respecting the
>> overwhelming number of BOD members who expressed strong interest to have
>> the technology be part of OFED (and WinOF).
> 
> We have also discussed in the EWG that it is probably not a good idea to include
> major new code changes late in the release cycle to components (like the core).
> 
> You should probably also discuss this with Tziporet and Betsy to get their 
> thoughts on this one.
> 
> woody
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ewg mailing list
> ewg at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg

Woody,


The past couple of times when I've spoken on HP's behalf at Sonoma, in the system vendor (i.e. OFA customer) panel, I've said more-or-less the much the same thing: 1. We like the OFED code, a single code base that supports RDMA hardware from many vendors. 2. Sometimes we have to use vendor-supplied code, because we cannot get the latest technology,  bug fixes, etc. on the schedule we require.

The value of OFED code is diluted when system vendors must use differentiated OFED code.

HP thinks we should work to get the RDMAoE code into 1.5, marked as evaluation if that is EWG's assessment, rather than push it off to 1.6. This is important technology that should not be held back.


Regards

Bob Souza, HP
Bob.Souza at hp.com