Date:   Mon, 8 May 2017 08:33:34 -0700
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>
Cc:     "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "leonro@...lanox.com" <leonro@...lanox.com>,
        "jiri@...lanox.com" <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ram.amrani@...ium.com" <ram.amrani@...ium.com>,
        "sagi@...mberg.me" <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        "ogerlitz@...lanox.com" <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
        "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
        "dennis.dalessandro@...el.com" <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com" <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
        "ariela@...lanox.com" <ariela@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC iproute2 0/8] RDMA tool

On Mon, 8 May 2017 15:19:28 +0000
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2017-05-07 at 12:20 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > Sat, May 06, 2017 at 04:40:24PM CEST, Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com wrote:  
> > > On Sat, 2017-05-06 at 12:40 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:  
> > > > Thu, May 04, 2017 at 08:10:54PM CEST, Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com wrote:  
> > > > > On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 21:02 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:  
> > > > > > Following our discussion both in mailing list [1] and at the LPC 2016 [2],
> > > > > > we would like to propose this RDMA tool to be part of iproute2 package
> > > > > > and finally improve this situation.  
> > > > > 
> > > > > Although I really appreciate your work: can you clarify why you would like to
> > > > > add *RDMA* functionality to an *IP routing* tool? I haven't found any motivation
> > > > > for adding RDMA functionality to iproute2 in [1].  
> > > > 
> > > > Bart, please realize that iproute2 is much more than "*IP routing* tool".
> > > > I understand you got confused by the name. Please see sources. Your comment
> > > > is totally pointless...  
> > > 
> > > I asked for a clarification that should have been in the cover letter but that
> > > was missing from that cover letter. So I think that was the right thing to do  
> > 
> > I think that was just complete misunderstanding about what iproute2 is.  
> 
> Hello Jiri,
> 
> I do not agree with your reply. The abbreviation "IP" occurs in the package
> name and that is a reference to the "Internet Protocol". As far as I know
> originally the iproute2 package contained only tools related to the Internet
> Protocol. Other tools, e.g. the tipc tool, were added later on. What I'm
> wondering about is whether it really is a good idea to add tools like tipc
> and rdma to the iproute2 package. The iproute2 package is so essential that
> it gets installed on every Linux system, including embedded systems and
> smartphones based on Linux. Several companies maintain embedded Linux
> distributions and tools to build software images. These tools provide a user
> interface that allows to select what packages go into such an image. Adding
> tools like tipc and rdma to the iproute2 package makes it harder than
> necessary for those who build software images for embedded devices to
> minimize the size of such an image. As you probably know even today the size
> of a software image still matters for embedded devices. Something else I have
> been wondering about is whether bundling the tipc and rdma tools in the
> iproute2 package will make the job harder of people who build Android ROMs?
> The ip tool is present in every Android ROM, and the size of these ROMs matters
> because the larger these ROMs are the less space remains for apps.
> 
> Bart.

I would assume embedded world does not use the standard distro model of "got to
have them all". The sane way to do builds for embedded is build everything
in the source, but selectively install components based on a Bill Of Materials
file.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists