From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: RDMA will be reverted Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 13:34:30 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20060630.141658.34759102.davem@davemloft.net> <1151708503.11835.8.camel@trinity.ogc.int> <20060701.144506.74722126.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-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]:7316 "EHLO sj-iport-4.cisco.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932392AbWGDUec (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jul 2006 16:34:32 -0400 To: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20060701.144506.74722126.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:45:06 -0700 (PDT)") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > Roland stated that it has never been the case that we have > rejected adding support for a certain class of devices on the > kinds of merits being discussed in this thread. And I'm saying > that TOE is such a case where we have emphatically done so. Well, in the past it's seemed more like patches have been rejected not because of a blanket refusal to consider support for certain hardware, but rather because of issues with the patches themselves. eg last year when Chelsio submitted some TOE hooks, you wrote the following >> There is no way you're going to be allowed to call such deep TCP >> internals from your driver. >> This would mean that every time we wish to change the data structures >> and interfaces for TCP socket lookup, your drivers would need to >> change. which looks like a very good reason to reject the changes. > So I am not saying iWARP or RDMA is equal to TOE, and if you had > actually read this thread you would have understood that. There's definitely been quite a bit of conflation between the two in this thread, even if you're not responsible... - R.