From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Morris Subject: Re: RDMA will be reverted Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:42:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20060628.000715.95062023.davem@davemloft.net> <20060629.124628.88476747.davem@davemloft.net> <1151611866.11739.57.camel@trinity.ogc.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: David Miller , rdreier@cisco.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Return-path: Received: from mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.9]:4771 "EHLO mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932462AbWF2Umi (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:42:38 -0400 To: Tom Tucker In-Reply-To: <1151611866.11739.57.camel@trinity.ogc.int> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Tom Tucker wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 12:46 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > From: Roland Dreier > > Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:54:37 -0700 > > > > > In any case I think we need to find a way for Linux to support iWARP > > > hardware, since there are users that want this, and (some of) the > > > vendors are working hard to do things the right way (including cc'ing > > > netdev on the conversation). I don't think it's good for Linux for > > > the answer to just be, "sorry, you're wrong to want to use that hardware." > > > > We give the same response for TOE stuff. > > What does the word "we" represent in this context? Is it the Linux > community at large, Linux and Andrew, you? I'm not trying to be > argumentative, I just want to understand how carefully and by whom iWARP > technology has been considered. $ grep -ri davem /usr/src/linux - James -- James Morris