Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 05/17/2016 10:48 PM, Parav Pandit wrote: >> Hi Doug, >> >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: >>> Nice catch there Bart. That was well before my role as maintainer and >>> so

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 05/17/2016 10:48 PM, Parav Pandit wrote: >> Hi Doug, >> >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: >>> Nice catch there Bart. That was well before my role as maintainer and >>> so settles things well enough for me. IOW, I

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On 05/17/2016 10:48 PM, Parav Pandit wrote: > Hi Doug, > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: >> Nice catch there Bart. That was well before my role as maintainer and >> so settles things well enough for me. IOW, I don't feel I need to worry >> about

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On 05/17/2016 10:48 PM, Parav Pandit wrote: > Hi Doug, > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: >> Nice catch there Bart. That was well before my role as maintainer and >> so settles things well enough for me. IOW, I don't feel I need to worry >> about trying to maintain the

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

Hi Doug, On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: > Nice catch there Bart. That was well before my role as maintainer and > so settles things well enough for me. IOW, I don't feel I need to worry > about trying to maintain the dual license nature of the RDMA

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

Hi Doug, On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: > Nice catch there Bart. That was well before my role as maintainer and > so settles things well enough for me. IOW, I don't feel I need to worry > about trying to maintain the dual license nature of the RDMA stack as it > was

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: > > Nice catch there Bart. That was well before my role as maintainer and > so settles things well enough for me. IOW, I don't feel I need to worry > about trying to maintain the dual license nature of the RDMA stack as

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: > > Nice catch there Bart. That was well before my role as maintainer and > so settles things well enough for me. IOW, I don't feel I need to worry > about trying to maintain the dual license nature of the RDMA stack as it > was broken long

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On 05/17/2016 01:29 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 05/16/2016 11:23 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: >> In this particular case, the dual license is used by the OpenFabrics >> Alliance. They strip the RDMA stack in the kernel down to just the RDMA >> stack files and ship those separate from the rest of

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On 05/17/2016 01:29 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 05/16/2016 11:23 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: >> In this particular case, the dual license is used by the OpenFabrics >> Alliance. They strip the RDMA stack in the kernel down to just the RDMA >> stack files and ship those separate from the rest of

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On 05/16/2016 11:23 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: In this particular case, the dual license is used by the OpenFabrics Alliance. They strip the RDMA stack in the kernel down to just the RDMA stack files and ship those separate from the rest of the kernel, along with the necessary user space stuff,

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On 05/16/2016 11:23 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: In this particular case, the dual license is used by the OpenFabrics Alliance. They strip the RDMA stack in the kernel down to just the RDMA stack files and ship those separate from the rest of the kernel, along with the necessary user space stuff,

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On Tue, 17 May 2016, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > It's also in entirely new files and not a modification of existing code, > and it's always been clear how it is. Some of the code has been in > since Linux 4.5 with a properly clear copyright. The problem is that the RDMA subsystem is rather more

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On Tue, 17 May 2016, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > It's also in entirely new files and not a modification of existing code, > and it's always been clear how it is. Some of the code has been in > since Linux 4.5 with a properly clear copyright. The problem is that the RDMA subsystem is rather more

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

Hi Linus, we're not talking about a driver here - we're talking about a new API lifted from a driver to generic code because it's commonly useful. It's also in entirely new files and not a modification of existing code, and it's always been clear how it is. Some of the code has been in since

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

Hi Linus, we're not talking about a driver here - we're talking about a new API lifted from a driver to generic code because it's commonly useful. It's also in entirely new files and not a modification of existing code, and it's always been clear how it is. Some of the code has been in since

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On 05/16/2016 01:46 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: >> >> The linux kernel as a whole is, but individual files still retain their >> separate copyright, they don't loose it just because they are shipped as >> part of the larger

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On 05/16/2016 01:46 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: >> >> The linux kernel as a whole is, but individual files still retain their >> separate copyright, they don't loose it just because they are shipped as >> part of the larger kernel. > > .. they

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: > > The linux kernel as a whole is, but individual files still retain their > separate copyright, they don't loose it just because they are shipped as > part of the larger kernel. .. they do lose it if they have GPL'd code

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: > > The linux kernel as a whole is, but individual files still retain their > separate copyright, they don't loose it just because they are shipped as > part of the larger kernel. .. they do lose it if they have GPL'd code merged into them.

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On 05/16/2016 07:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > [adding Linus and linux-kernel to Cc] > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 08:04:17PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >> You submitted new files into the subsystem under GPL only license in >> contrast to the rest of the subsystem. This presents a problem.

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On 05/16/2016 07:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > [adding Linus and linux-kernel to Cc] > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 08:04:17PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >> You submitted new files into the subsystem under GPL only license in >> contrast to the rest of the subsystem. This presents a problem.

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On 05/16/2016 07:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > [adding Linus and linux-kernel to Cc] > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 08:04:17PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >> You submitted new files into the subsystem under GPL only license in >> contrast to the rest of the subsystem. This presents a problem.

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

On 05/16/2016 07:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > [adding Linus and linux-kernel to Cc] > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 08:04:17PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >> You submitted new files into the subsystem under GPL only license in >> contrast to the rest of the subsystem. This presents a problem.

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

[adding Linus and linux-kernel to Cc] On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 08:04:17PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > You submitted new files into the subsystem under GPL only license in > contrast to the rest of the subsystem. This presents a problem. I'm in > the position where I need to either revert them,

Re: CQ and RDMA READ/WRITE APIs

[adding Linus and linux-kernel to Cc] On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 08:04:17PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > You submitted new files into the subsystem under GPL only license in > contrast to the rest of the subsystem. This presents a problem. I'm in > the position where I need to either revert them,