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

[Grant Grundler]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:43:58PM -0700, Venkata Jagana wrote:
> > 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) :)

Yes - sorry. My bad.

> 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.

I likely am.  But comments about requiring "commitment" and
"business planning resources" suggest otherwise.

> 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.

Well, "a true example of that effort" would have included code.

> 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.

If there is a fundemental difference, it's something along 
the lines of:
	openrmda: Hey! We have this transport neutral RNIC PI spec that
		needs IB support!
	openib: Nice. Where is the code for iWarp?
	openrdma: Uhm, well, we've only written the spec so far.
	openib: Ok. What do you want from us?
	openrdma: Well, we want you to review this RNIC-PI spec and then
		write the code to support IB.
	openib: Are you crazy? We have a working implementation.
		And it's in kernel.org.
	openrmda: We know. That's why we should collaborate.
		RNIC PI spec is transport neutral.
		Could you review it and then implement it in openib.org?
	openib: No. You can submit patches and we'll review those.
	openrmda: Ok. But I'm not gonna write any code unless someone
		commits to accept it. We can't plan our business
		unless someone commits resources to work on
		accepting our patches.
	openib: No. You can submit patches and we'll review those.
...	

I'm trying to NOT be sarcastic - just summarize what I've
understood so far. Please correct or post your own version
(sans rude talk by certain people).


...
> 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 -:)

Tom answered this nicely already.

> In the opensource world, developers should/will have the freedom to
> add what they want to do

Open source developers have *some* allegiance to their funders.
HP pays me to look out for their interests  - but I don't do that
unconditionally. If an HP person is pushing for the wrong things
that I know won't fly, I have an obligation to push back.

> but of course, the acceptance of their
> contributions into mainline is completely a different matter.

We agree "acceptance of contributions" is conditional.
But earlier emails stated someone needed a firm commitment
that openrdma RNIC PI would get accepted into openib.org.
There's a disconnect there.

hth,
grant