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

[Sean Hefty]

>> I don't see much urgency in merging it now.  When svn diverges from
>> what's upstream in the kernel, it makes my life harder because I have
>> to figure out which patches belong upstream and sometimes merge things
>> by hand (when they hit the divergent regions).
>
>The easy solution here is not to diverge. Unless the iWARP support
>regresses IB functionality, it does no harm and creates a single
>software core for both iWARP and IB developers to bring new drivers to
>market.

Until iWarp is integrated with the kernel, the code will diverge however.  And I
agree with Roland, merging diverged code upstream is a pain.  I'm definitely
willing to re-organize the code to make it easier to maintain the code out of
the tree.  Also, if we can isolate the IB/iWarp code into separate files, then
it's not a big issue pushing changes upstream.

- Sean