Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:09:59AM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: > > >> Granted our dev process may not be documented, but I always assumed the >> general idea was to get changes accepted upstream, then pull into ofed. >> OFED is just a mechanism to make top-of-tree linux work on distro >> kernels. There are some exceptions, but this stuff shouldn't be an >> exception. >> > > That is what many people wish for, me included, but it is not at all > what generally happens :( > > In my observation the typical flow is: > - A patch is written, it may or may not be sent to the list > - 'business drivers' get it slammed into OFED right away > - A patch is finally sent for proper review > - It is not merged, there are comments.. > - Interest in doing anything is lost because it is already in > OFED and that is all that matters, right? > - People complain. > > For instance, the iWarp thingy we were just discussing fits this > process rather well. > >
You're wrong. I started that iWARP change in 2007 on LKLM. I proposed a few ideas and show the pros/cons of each. And it was NAKed 100% by mister miller. It was then included in OFED as a last resort only because I couldn't get any help with trying to add this upstream in any form. I even spent a few weeks developing a way to administor "iwarp only" ipaddresses, but Roland didn't like that scheme for various reasons. So please don't mention that particular patch as a "bad process" unless you want to argue with me some more about it. Also, the chelsio iWARP driver has 100% been upstream first, then ofed. Some of us are indeed trying to do the right thing. <steps off soap box> _______________________________________________ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg