On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 06:24:46PM -0700, Caitlin Bestler wrote: > Oh that's a great development plan for me to propose > to my business people. Let's go write lots of code, > and *after* we write it the IB people (our competitors) > have agreed to *look* at it (but they're all busy, don't > forget) and *then* we just might get merged in.
You will never get a guarantee your code will go into kernel.org regardless of which path you take. I've seen three of the lead developers (a) promise to review any proposed code changes and (b) indicate they are willing to merge in support for RNICs. That's more than most people get. > If nobody is willing to discuss what the characteristics > of this merged API will look like *before* we have to > code it then there is no motivation to work inside OpenIB > at all. The openib.org APIs today only exists as code. Bob Woodruff is writing a paper documenting some of the interfaces but it's not done yet. Code is the primary currency to exchange ideas in open source forums. It doesn't have to be working code - psuedo code is probably sufficient to start with in this case. Look at the relevant openib.org header files (e.g. ib_verbs.h, ib_user_verbs.h) and make a list of changes needed for it to be useful to an RNIC. Just pointing at RNIC-PI isn't interesting. hth, grant _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
