Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:12:06PM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: > > >>>> Granted our dev process may not be documented, but I always assumed >>>> the general idea was to get changes accepted upstream, then pull into >>>> ofed. OFED is just a mechanism to make top-of-tree linux work on >>>> distro kernels. There are some exceptions, but this stuff shouldn't >>>> be an exception. >>>> > > >>> That is what many people wish for, me included, but it is not at all >>> what generally happens :( >>> >>> In my observation the typical flow is: >>> - A patch is written, it may or may not be sent to the list >>> - 'business drivers' get it slammed into OFED right away >>> - A patch is finally sent for proper review >>> - It is not merged, there are comments.. >>> - Interest in doing anything is lost because it is already in >>> OFED and that is all that matters, right? >>> - People complain. >>> >>> For instance, the iWarp thingy we were just discussing fits this >>> process rather well. >>> > > >> You're wrong. I started that iWARP change in 2007 on LKLM. I proposed >> a few ideas and show the pros/cons of each. And it was NAKed 100% by >> mister miller. It was then included in OFED as a last resort only >> because I couldn't get any help with trying to add this upstream in any >> form. I even spent a few weeks developing a way to administor "iwarp >> only" ipaddresses, but Roland didn't like that scheme for various >> reasons. So please don't mention that particular patch as a "bad >> process" unless you want to argue with me some more about it. >> > > Uhm, what you just described does fit my process outline: > > #1 - Patch written, sent to LKML. Check. > #3 - Patch sent for proper review - in 2007. Check. > #4 - Not merged. NAK by DM. Check. > #2 - 'business drivers' force it into OFED - 'last resort' ie, iWarp > cards can't be used without some fix. Check. > #5 - Interest is lost. Yep, this was done in 2007, and it was idle > till now. Check. > #6 - People Complain. Hmm. Yep. Check. > >
Note the ordering is different. IE I tried very hard to get the "right" solution designed and agreed-upon upstream. But failed. That's my bad. I did, however help with the iWARP core code including neighbour update net events which did go in upstream before ofed. > Don't think I'm being critical toward only you, or singling out that > little iWarp patch. But it really isn't special, or different, or an > exception. Pick nearly any patch in OFED and someone will rush to its > defense with a 'we tried to follow the process and it failed, so we > did it anyway' argument. > > I also didn't say this is the only way that RDMA development goes, > lots and lots of stuff goes into mainline first, from everyone. > > Jason > OFED maintainers should be more rigid, perhaps, with requiring that changes be accepted upstream first. One observation is that there is no "OFED RDMA maintainer", aka a Roland Dreier, for the OFED code. So each driver maintainer pretty much has free reign to do the right thing or the wrong thing... Steve. _______________________________________________ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
