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

[Roland Dreier]

 > 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.

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 and b) trying to get openib and the kernel community
to accept code just so a vendor can meet a product marketing deadline.

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.

 - R.