Re: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans
Ira Weiny wrote: I agree. OFED should be downstream of kernel.org for as much as possible. New features should be introduced there first. Ira I totally agree and we are going to send all patches to kernel.org soon. Note that the changes are not only influencing kernel space but user space too. The reason I brought it to OFA is that like iWARP at the past we also need OFA decision Tziporet ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
Re: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:35:39 -0800 "Woodruff, Robert J" wrote: > Doug wrote, > > >I'm not so much concerned over IBTA standards. I'm concerned over what > >makes it into the upstream linux kernels. How much OFED's kernel > >differs from the upstream kernel directly impacts supportability of the > >OFED stack in our products. The more it diverges, the higher the > >support load. We actively control that divergence as a result. > > In general, we discussed and decided at the last developer's workshop > in Sonoma to try to make sure that any new features that were going > into OFED be first accepted for inclusion in the upstream kernel, or > at least queued in Roland's tree for upstream. > I think we did a pretty good job in OFED 1.4 of adhering to that > process, or at least we made significant progress towards that goal. > > We did this specifically to try to prevent major divergence between the > upstream kernel and the OFED kernel. So for a major new feature like > IBoE, I think it makes sense to first discuss the patches on ofa-general > and perhaps even a RFC on kernel.org before we include it into an OFED > release. > > my 2 cents, > > woody I agree. OFED should be downstream of kernel.org for as much as possible. New features should be introduced there first. Ira ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
RE: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans
Doug wrote, >I'm not so much concerned over IBTA standards. I'm concerned over what >makes it into the upstream linux kernels. How much OFED's kernel >differs from the upstream kernel directly impacts supportability of the >OFED stack in our products. The more it diverges, the higher the >support load. We actively control that divergence as a result. In general, we discussed and decided at the last developer's workshop in Sonoma to try to make sure that any new features that were going into OFED be first accepted for inclusion in the upstream kernel, or at least queued in Roland's tree for upstream. I think we did a pretty good job in OFED 1.4 of adhering to that process, or at least we made significant progress towards that goal. We did this specifically to try to prevent major divergence between the upstream kernel and the OFED kernel. So for a major new feature like IBoE, I think it makes sense to first discuss the patches on ofa-general and perhaps even a RFC on kernel.org before we include it into an OFED release. my 2 cents, woody ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
RE: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 18:12 -0800, Gilad Shainer wrote: > We need to look on this from the right angel. This is not a "feature" > but rather a core component that adds support for a new adapter/NIC. > This is the same as the core drivers for the other adapters that are > supported already. In all fairness, the comment below was to implement IB over eth. Nothing today does that. iWARP is not IB and has unique requirements. Running full IB over eth is different. Saying it's not a new feature is like saying that when iSCSI over TCP first came out that it wasn't a new feature. Sure, we had SCSI and we had TCP, but we didn't have SCSI over TCP, so adding it *was* a new feature. > In general we need to look not only on spec related features, but also > to cover features that can benefit OFED and WinOF users (such as IPoIB > connected mode or WinVerbs). I'm not so much concerned over IBTA standards. I'm concerned over what makes it into the upstream linux kernels. How much OFED's kernel differs from the upstream kernel directly impacts supportability of the OFED stack in our products. The more it diverges, the higher the support load. We actively control that divergence as a result. > Gilad. > > > -Original Message- > From: ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org > [mailto:ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Ryan, Jim > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 2:01 PM > To: Hefty, Sean; Tziporet Koren; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org > Cc: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org > Subject: RE: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans > > Sean, I think that's a good point. What it suggests to me is asking when > someone proposes a "non-standard" feature, what process, procedures, > documentation, support, etc. if any, should be made available by the > entity making the proposal? > > It seems to me asking the same questions of all proposed features is > fair and reasonable, and shouldn't represent an unreasonable barrier to > progress. > > Thoughts? If this already exists, it's my ignorance and I will apologize > in advance > > Thanks again, Jim > > -Original Message- > From: ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org > [mailto:ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Sean Hefty > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:54 PM > To: 'Tziporet Koren'; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org > Cc: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org > Subject: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans > > >* Mellanox suggested to add IB over Eth - this is similar to iWARP but > >more like IB (e.g. including UD), and can work over ConnectX. > >A concern was raised by Intel (Dave Sommers) since it is not a standard > > >transport. > >Decision: This request will be raised in the MWG, and they should > >decide if OFA can support it. > > Just is just my opinion, but in the past, OFED has included non-standard > features, like extended connected mode, that are still not part of the > IBTA spec. > > Do we know if such a feature would be accepted into the Linux kernel? I > think OFED should base their decision more on the answer to that > question than IBTA approval. > > - Sean > > ___ > ewg mailing list > ewg@lists.openfabrics.org > http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg > ___ > ewg mailing list > ewg@lists.openfabrics.org > http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg > ___ > ewg mailing list > ewg@lists.openfabrics.org > http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg -- Doug Ledford GPG KeyID: CFBFF194 http://people.redhat.com/dledford Infiniband specific RPMs available at http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
RE: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 14:00 -0800, Ryan, Jim wrote: > Sean, I think that's a good point. What it suggests to me is asking when > someone proposes a "non-standard" feature, what process, procedures, > documentation, support, etc. if any, should be made available by the entity > making the proposal? > > It seems to me asking the same questions of all proposed features is fair and > reasonable, and shouldn't represent an unreasonable barrier to progress. > > Thoughts? If this already exists, it's my ignorance and I will apologize in > advance > > Thanks again, Jim > > -Original Message- > From: ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org > [mailto:ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Sean Hefty > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:54 PM > To: 'Tziporet Koren'; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org > Cc: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org > Subject: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans > > >* Mellanox suggested to add IB over Eth - this is similar to iWARP but > >more like IB (e.g. including UD), and can work over ConnectX. > >A concern was raised by Intel (Dave Sommers) since it is not a standard > >transport. > >Decision: This request will be raised in the MWG, and they should decide > >if OFA can support it. > > Just is just my opinion, but in the past, OFED has included non-standard > features, like extended connected mode, that are still not part of the IBTA > spec. > > Do we know if such a feature would be accepted into the Linux kernel? I think > OFED should base their decision more on the answer to that question than IBTA > approval. FWIW, this is the question I ask before accepting OFED kernel patches into our kernel. With the exception of SDP (which was intentionally allowed) and qlgc_vnic (which was unintentionally allowed), if it's not either in the upstream linux kernel, or slated for inclusion, then I don't include it in our kernel. Hence why xrc and rds support still isn't in our products. -- Doug Ledford GPG KeyID: CFBFF194 http://people.redhat.com/dledford Infiniband specific RPMs available at http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
RE: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans
We need to look on this from the right angel. This is not a "feature" but rather a core component that adds support for a new adapter/NIC. This is the same as the core drivers for the other adapters that are supported already. In general we need to look not only on spec related features, but also to cover features that can benefit OFED and WinOF users (such as IPoIB connected mode or WinVerbs). Gilad. -Original Message- From: ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Ryan, Jim Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 2:01 PM To: Hefty, Sean; Tziporet Koren; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans Sean, I think that's a good point. What it suggests to me is asking when someone proposes a "non-standard" feature, what process, procedures, documentation, support, etc. if any, should be made available by the entity making the proposal? It seems to me asking the same questions of all proposed features is fair and reasonable, and shouldn't represent an unreasonable barrier to progress. Thoughts? If this already exists, it's my ignorance and I will apologize in advance Thanks again, Jim -Original Message- From: ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Sean Hefty Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:54 PM To: 'Tziporet Koren'; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans >* Mellanox suggested to add IB over Eth - this is similar to iWARP but >more like IB (e.g. including UD), and can work over ConnectX. >A concern was raised by Intel (Dave Sommers) since it is not a standard >transport. >Decision: This request will be raised in the MWG, and they should >decide if OFA can support it. Just is just my opinion, but in the past, OFED has included non-standard features, like extended connected mode, that are still not part of the IBTA spec. Do we know if such a feature would be accepted into the Linux kernel? I think OFED should base their decision more on the answer to that question than IBTA approval. - Sean ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
RE: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans
Sean, I think that's a good point. What it suggests to me is asking when someone proposes a "non-standard" feature, what process, procedures, documentation, support, etc. if any, should be made available by the entity making the proposal? It seems to me asking the same questions of all proposed features is fair and reasonable, and shouldn't represent an unreasonable barrier to progress. Thoughts? If this already exists, it's my ignorance and I will apologize in advance Thanks again, Jim -Original Message- From: ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:ewg-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Sean Hefty Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:54 PM To: 'Tziporet Koren'; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ewg] RE: OFED Jan 5, 2009 meeting minutes on OFED plans >* Mellanox suggested to add IB over Eth - this is similar to iWARP but >more like IB (e.g. including UD), and can work over ConnectX. >A concern was raised by Intel (Dave Sommers) since it is not a standard >transport. >Decision: This request will be raised in the MWG, and they should decide >if OFA can support it. Just is just my opinion, but in the past, OFED has included non-standard features, like extended connected mode, that are still not part of the IBTA spec. Do we know if such a feature would be accepted into the Linux kernel? I think OFED should base their decision more on the answer to that question than IBTA approval. - Sean ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
