[openib-general] Upstream submission

[Woodruff, Robert J]

 Paul Baxter wrote, 

>While I am delighted that the lower layers are suffficiently stable to 
>warrant being considered for code review/inclusion in the kernel, I am 
>slightly surprised.

>Has the code been used in anger enough?

I think that Roland is suggesting we submit it for review now,
not inclusion. The team can then incorporate the comments from
lkml before submitting it for inclusion. 
Given the past IBA projects where we developed a lot
of code/capabilities and tested it fully before getting review by lkml
only to have the code flamed to death when we did submit it,
I think that sending in code early is better than later (IMO). 

>There seem to be a lot of bugs still being discovered daily.

>Wouldn't having at least a preliminary set of user capabilities help 
>assessment of the low level code and allow a wider set of people to
evaluate 
>it.

I think the initial set of capabilities is the ability to run IPoIB. 

>Are there sufficient test tools and documentation to allow an IB novice

>(kernel expert) to evaluate the offering.

Initial test tools can be anything that runs on top of a network stack
today.
I do think that it is important to have good enough documentation for
people to configure/run the stuff. I actually think that having it
included in the 
kernel tree will make it easier for people to try it out, rather than
having to check out the code from svn. 

>Perhaps over the next month Doug could be a 'dry run guinea pig' for
kernel 
>inclusion and highlight the documentation and coding areas of
difficulty 
>prior to submission for a wider audience.

Good idea.