On Wednesday 14 June 2006 18:37, Bob Woodruff wrote: > Unfortunately, due to a problem with our email server, I was not receiving > openib-general emails for the last week and missed this thread or would > have spoken up then. > > Anyway, What is the criteria/decision process for deciding that something > will > or will not be included. I think that we have an equal say as to what > should go in and what should not. Seems like there are double standards > here. You are including last minute fixes for things like the Pathscale > driver after RC6, but will not allow a fix that is needed by our product. > The Pathscale fixes affect ONLY Pathscale users. Unfortunately, the changes you are requesting affect ALL the ulp's -- IPoIB, SDP, iSer,... , and NOT just your product. These changes would mean activating the ib_local_sa module (which has NOT been QA'd under OFED). There was a long thread quite a while ago on this topic, starting May 4:
see ( http://openib.org/pipermail/openib-general/2006-May/020977.html ) We decided then not to include the local_sa module, and heard no objections. Since the change you request (which is a kernel-level change) affects many products, not just IntelMPI, it is not possible to just include it at the last minute and hope for the best (due to lack of QA). - Jack _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
