[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1187271791.4685.9.camel@trinity.ogc.int>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:43:11 -0500
From: Tom Tucker <tom@...ngridcomputing.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mshefty@...ips.intel.com,
rdreier@...co.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, general@...ts.openfabrics.org
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH RFC] RDMA/CMA: Allocate PS_TCP ports
from the host TCP port space.
On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 22:26 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
[...snip...]
> > 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?
>
> 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@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists