On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 22:26 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:

[...snip...]

quoted text
> > I think removing the RDMA stack is the wrong thing to do, and you 
> > shouldn't just threaten to yank entire subsystems because you don't like 
> > the technology.  Lets keep this constructive, can we?  RDMA should get 
> > the respect of any other technology in Linux.  Maybe its a niche in your 
> > opinion, but come on, there's more RDMA users than say, the sparc64 
> > port.  Eh?
> 
> It's not about being a niche.  It's about creating a maintainable 
> software net stack that has predictable behavior.

Isn't RDMA _part_ of the "software net stack" within Linux? Why isn't
making RDMA stable, supportable and maintainable equally as important as
any other subsystem? 

quoted text
> 
> Needing to reach out of the RDMA sandbox and reserve net stack resources 
> away from itself travels a path we've consistently avoided.
> 
> 
> >> I will NACK any patch that opens up sockets to eat up ports or
> >> anything stupid like that.
> > 
> > Got it.
> 
> Ditto for me as well.
> 
> 	Jeff
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/