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

[Grant Grundler]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 03:53:19PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
>  > 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.

*nod*

BTW, this is a message that needs to be repeated regularly until
iWARP support *is* upstream. The opposite perception is still lingering
in some places because of discussions from 1 and 2 years ago.

> 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

Yeah, that has happened before.  And I expect netdev folks might strongly
object (if they haven't already) to some "sideband" method of managing
TCP/IP config when TCP/IP is exclusively running on an RNIC (TOE with
RDMA front-end).  IMHO, that's seems like the "hardest to fix" issue
so everyone is happy. Most of the other details can be negotiated.

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

TTM via kernel.org?  BWHAHAHA! :^)

Sorry, I can't take that serious. :)

> 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.

"Exactly." says the co-maintainer of the parisc-linux port. :)

thanks,
grant