> Roland stated that it has never been the case that we have > rejected adding support for a certain class of devices on the > kinds of merits being discussed in this thread. And I'm saying > that TOE is such a case where we have emphatically done so.
Well, in the past it's seemed more like patches have been rejected not because of a blanket refusal to consider support for certain hardware, but rather because of issues with the patches themselves. eg last year when Chelsio submitted some TOE hooks, you wrote the following <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-netdev&m=112382991506811&w=2> >> There is no way you're going to be allowed to call such deep TCP >> internals from your driver. >> This would mean that every time we wish to change the data structures >> and interfaces for TCP socket lookup, your drivers would need to >> change. which looks like a very good reason to reject the changes. > So I am not saying iWARP or RDMA is equal to TOE, and if you had > actually read this thread you would have understood that. There's definitely been quite a bit of conflation between the two in this thread, even if you're not responsible... - R. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
