Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Sounds too risky to me, this is technology preview code so > I want to have all this stuff off by default but easily > enabled by users who want to demo.
I really don't want us to go again through things like yours (MST, Jack) vs. Sean rdma_establish, ucma versions etc. Like it or not, as was defined by the founders, OFED is --not-- a framework for development and unless there is a very specific reason (*) its kernel/user content should be based on code that have --passed through this component maintainer-- As been said over this list lets not treat OFED as a framework to shovel in unreviewed code. If you feel that your mthca and rdmacm QoS changes should be under CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL , for-mm etc, specify this when you send the patches for review. Bottom line, lets not hind behind obscure definitions like "technology preview" to escape from normal processes where there -is- an alternative, the point here is not to meet the code freeze dead line avoiding normal processes - lets use processes and extend the deadline for the QoS merge if needed. (*) So far, the only case where people felt it makes sense to merge out of tree code was the local-sa and it is done by this component maintainer. > After I post the rest of the code, if you like you'll be able to > post an iser patch to add this stuff to iser as well. this is irrelevant till we resolve the process. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
