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

[Steve Wise <swise-7bPotxP6k4+P2YhJcF5u+vpXobYPEAuW@public.gmane.org>]

Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:09:59AM -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.

Also, the chelsio iWARP driver has 100% been upstream first, then 
ofed.   Some of us are indeed trying to do the right thing.

<steps off soap box>


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html