Jeff Garzik
Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:28:46 -0700
Steve Wise wrote:
David Miller wrote:From: Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:40:16 -0700Steve Wise wrote:Does anyone have ideas on how to reserve the port space without using a struct socket?Any more comments?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