Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta Platforms Host Network Interface

Jiri Pirko
2024-04-08T11:51:04Z

Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 08:38:25PM CEST, alexander.duyck@gmail.com wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 8:17 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 07:24:32AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> > > Alex already indicated new features are coming, changes to the core
>> > > code will be proposed. How should those be evaluated? Hypothetically
>> > > should fbnic be allowed to be the first implementation of something
>> > > invasive like Mina's DMABUF work? Google published an open userspace
>> > > for NCCL that people can (in theory at least) actually run. Meta would
>> > > not be able to do that. I would say that clearly crosses the line and
>> > > should not be accepted.
>> >
>> > Why not? Just because we are not commercially selling it doesn't mean
>> > we couldn't look at other solutions such as QEMU. If we were to
>> > provide a github repo with an emulation of the NIC would that be
>> > enough to satisfy the "commercial" requirement?
>>
>> My test is not "commercial", it is enabling open source ecosystem vs
>> benefiting only proprietary software.
>
>Sorry, that was where this started where Jiri was stating that we had
>to be selling this.

For the record, I never wrote that. Not sure why you repeat this over
this thread.

And for the record, I don't share Jason's concern about proprietary
userspace. From what I see, whoever is consuming the KAPI is free to do
that however he pleases.

But, this is completely distant from my concerns about this driver.

[...]

>> > I agree. We need a consistent set of standards. I just strongly
>> > believe commercial availability shouldn't be one of them.
>>
>> I never said commercial availability. I talked about open source vs
>> proprietary userspace. This is very standard kernel stuff.
>>
>> You have an unavailable NIC, so we know it is only ever operated with
>> Meta's proprietary kernel fork, supporting Meta's proprietary
>> userspace software. Where exactly is the open source?
>
>It depends on your definition of "unavailable". I could argue that for
>many most of the Mellanox NICs are also have limited availability as
>they aren't exactly easy to get a hold of without paying a hefty
>ransom.

Sorry, but I have to say this is ridiculous argument, really Alex.
Apples and oranges. …