Re: [ewg] [PATCH v4] IB Core: RAW ETH support

Steve Wise
2010-06-16T18:35:07Z

Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:12:06PM -0500, Steve Wise wrote:
>
>
>>>> Granted our dev process may not be documented, but I always assumed
>>>> the general idea was to get changes accepted upstream, then pull into
>>>> ofed. OFED is just a mechanism to make top-of-tree linux work on
>>>> distro kernels. There are some exceptions, but this stuff shouldn't
>>>> be an exception.
>>>>
>
>
>>> That is what many people wish for, me included, but it is not at all
>>> what generally happens :(
>>>
>>> In my observation the typical flow is:
>>> - A patch is written, it may or may not be sent to the list
>>> - 'business drivers' get it slammed into OFED right away
>>> - A patch is finally sent for proper review
>>> - It is not merged, there are comments..
>>> - Interest in doing anything is lost because it is already in
>>> OFED and that is all that matters, right?
>>> - People complain.
>>>
>>> For instance, the iWarp thingy we were just discussing fits this
>>> process rather well.
>>>
>
>
>> You're wrong. I started that iWARP change in 2007 on LKLM. I proposed
>> a few ideas and show the pros/cons of each. And it was NAKed 100% by
>> mister miller. It was then included in OFED as a last resort only
>> because I couldn't get any help with trying to add this upstream in any
>> form. I even spent a few weeks developing a way to administor "iwarp
>> only" ipaddresses, but Roland didn't like that scheme for various
>> reasons. So please don't mention that particular patch as a "bad
>> process" unless you want to argue with me some more about it.
>>
>
> Uhm, what you just described does fit my process outline:
>
> #1 - Patch written, sent to LKML. Check.
> #3 - Patch sent for proper review - in 2007. Check.
> #4 - Not merged. NAK by DM. Check.
> #2 - 'business drivers' force it into OFED - 'last resort' ie, iWarp
> cards can't be used without some fix. Check.
> #5 - Interest is lost. Yep, this was done in 2007, and it was idle
> till now. Check.
> #6 - People Complain. Hmm. Yep. Check.
>
>

Note the ordering is different. IE I tried very hard to get the "right"
solution designed and agreed-upon upstream. But failed. That's my
bad. I did, however help with the iWARP core code including neighbour
update net events which did go in upstream before ofed.

> Don't think I'm being critical toward only you, or singling out that
> little iWarp patch. But it really isn't special, or different, or an
> exception. Pick nearly any patch in OFED and someone will rush to its
> defense with a 'we tried to follow the process and it failed, so we
> did it anyway' argument.
>
> I also didn't say this is the only way that RDMA development goes,
> lots and lots of stuff goes into mainline first, from everyone.
>
> Jason
>

OFED maintainers should be more rigid, perhaps, with requiring that
changes be accepted upstream first. One observation is that there is no
"OFED RDMA maintainer", aka a Roland Dreier, for the OFED code. So each
driver maintainer pretty much has free reign to do the right thing or
the wrong thing...

Steve.