> > The base argument is Dave Miller doesn't like RDMA or iWARP. I completely > > respect Dave's opinions, but in this case, I don't think it's his call, > > since this patch is completely isolated to the IB tree and the RDMA stack. > > Not including this will directly affect anyone using iWARP with Linux. > > Hopefully those people will chime in at some point, but I'm not sure that > > will help because the arguments so far against this have been somewhat > > irrational, and nothing technical-oriented. > > My impression of the general netdev argument is that if it touches > sockets it has to have 100% of the behavior and functionality of the > Linux stack. iwarp fails that test.. There is absolutely no way to fix > that - that is rational, technical and not at all 'solution oriented' :)
The socket is behaving 100% as in the Linux stack. It is not even used for sending or receiving traffic. Allocating a socket is the secondary solution. The problem is we need a way to reserve a TCP port. We are not interested in mucking with networking resources anymore than we have to. >The only reason iwarp has got as far as it has in the offical tree is >because it piggy backed on IB's 'sandbox' approach to the RDMA >layer. So, if you want to play in that area you have to play by those >rules, and that means staying in the sandbox .. Can someone give me a history lesson here? When/where is the "sandbox" agreement? I am still confused as to why a patch to an infiniband module has to be sent to netdev for approval instead of openly to linux-rdma!? Chien -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
