Steve Wise wrote:
David Miller wrote:
From: Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:40:16 -0700
Steve Wise wrote:
Any more comments?
Does anyone have ideas on how to reserve the port space without using
a struct socket?
How about we just remove the RDMA stack altogether? I am not at all
kidding. If you guys can't stay in your sand box and need to cause
problems for the normal network stack, it's unacceptable. We were
told all along the if RDMA went into the tree none of this kind of
stuff would be an issue.
I think removing the RDMA stack is the wrong thing to do, and you
shouldn't just threaten to yank entire subsystems because you don't like
the technology. Lets keep this constructive, can we? RDMA should get
the respect of any other technology in Linux. Maybe its a niche in your
opinion, but come on, there's more RDMA users than say, the sparc64
port. Eh?
It's not about being a niche. It's about creating a maintainable
software net stack that has predictable behavior.
Needing to reach out of the RDMA sandbox and reserve net stack resources
away from itself travels a path we've consistently avoided.
I will NACK any patch that opens up sockets to eat up ports or
anything stupid like that.
Got it.
Ditto for me as well.
Jeff
-
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
