Message-ID: <99863D2ED484D449811D97A4C44C9CBD7C5169@EPEXCH2.qlogic.org>
Date:	Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:12:49 -0500
From:	"John Russo" <john.russo@...gic.com>
To:	<shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	"Amar Mudrankit \(Contractor - \)" <amar.mudrankit@...gic.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <rdreier@...co.com>,
	"Kuchimanchi, Ramachandra \(Contractor - \)" 
	<ramachandra.kuchimanchi@...gic.com>,
	"Poornima Kamath \(Contractor - \)" <poornima.kamath@...gic.com>
Subject: RE: Fwd: [ofa-general] FW: QLogic vNIC Kernel Submission

Stephen,

>> Understand that this is a community process and it isn't going to
follow 
>> a corporate model. There is no external pressures like schedules and
>> users.

With all due respect...
In my mind, that is just not realistic.  Work done in this community has
very strong corporate repercussions and these issues can't simply be
ignored. I am not saying that the community should ever alter their
ideals for any company, just that some people/groups/companies will be
reluctant to even try to contribute if they feel that guidelines like
this can be changed this way and make their efforts wasted.

>> As Patrick said, there is also a sense of doing the right thing. The 
>> developers would rather not repeat past mistakes, so are naturally 
>> hesitant on API's.

I completely understand the sense of doing the right thing. That is why
we put in the effort to migrate our code to sysfs in the first place.
We had a different solution but agreed to change it to meet the
guidelines of other contributors to the InfiniBand (OFED) stack.  What I
can't understand is the ease of which some people say "let's just change
to this great new design even if it means a large rewrite of existing
code which may increase the likelihood of injecting errors".  I
apologize if I come off as being agitated but it is very frustrating to
spend time and effort attempting to conform to a groups requests only to
have it changed at the end. 

>> Adding a device that follows existing API's is always much easier.
What 
>> you are seeing is in part an internal discomfort with the plethora of

>> API's and the binary baggage of ioctl's, sysfs, etc.

Again, I completely understand the level of discomfort.  We are trying
to work to the same 'rules' that other members of our community have
used.

>> If you could give a general outline of what the interface you want
would >> do, perhaps the community could provide some sample code that
do what you 
>> want.
>> Netlink interfaces are less common, and there are fewer examples.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:shemminger@...tta.com]
Sent: Wed 6/18/2008 12:44 AM
To: Patrick McHardy
Cc: Amar Mudrankit (Contractor - ); netdev@...r.kernel.org;
rdreier@...co.com; Kuchimanchi, Ramachandra (Contractor - ); Poornima
Kamath (Contractor - )
Subject: Re: Fwd: [ofa-general] FW: QLogic vNIC Kernel Submission
 
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:34:59 +0200
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> wrote:

> Amar Mudrankit wrote:
> > It looks as if my original email was "scrubbed" before it made the
> > mailing list so I am resending it...
> > 
> > QLogic has been attempting to submit our virtual NIC (vNIC) driver
to
> > the Linux kernel for several months.  We have made changes to the
code
> > based on the feedback we have received over four rounds of
> > submissions. Among the feedback we received during this process was
a
> > request to alter our code to use a single value per file for
> > configuration of our driver through sysfs interface.  After spending
> > much time and effort to complete this change to our design we
> > re-submitted the driver only to receive a response suggesting that
we
> > change once again from this interface to a different API interface
> > called rtnl_link.  Needless to say I am very frustrated with this
> > process. This new API interface would require substantial changes to
> > our code.
> 
> Thats one of the reasons why it should be done before merging it.
> The other one being that an API can't be removed easily once its
> in the kernel.


--
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