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 _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general