From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: RDMA will be reverted Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:29:35 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1151708503.11835.8.camel@trinity.ogc.int> <20060701.144506.74722126.davem@davemloft.net> <20060705.112703.71101840.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: tom@opengridcomputing.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Return-path: Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72]:55675 "EHLO sj-iport-3.cisco.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965022AbWGEU3k (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jul 2006 16:29:40 -0400 To: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20060705.112703.71101840.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Wed, 05 Jul 2006 11:27:03 -0700 (PDT)") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > Then why in the world would we put up explicit web pages that > say "TOE is bad, here's a list of reasons why" if we had any > intention of ever adding support for these kinds of devices? I think there's a little bit of leap of logic there. Everyone agrees that winmodems are bad and yet there's still drivers/char/mwave. This TOE-phobia feels almost as if in the middle of one of those silly IDE vs. SCSI flamewars, someone declared that Linux shouldn't have IDE drivers. > It's going to be difficult to discuss RDMA and iWARP sanely unless you > accept the indisputable fact that we've rejected TOE as a technology > entirely, and it is an example of precedence for disallowing support > for entire classes of hardware. Fine. I don't think I have much more to add to the discussion anyway. The way forward seems to be to merge basic iWARP support that lives in drivers/infiniband, and then you can accept or reject things for better integration, like notifiers for routing changes. - R.