[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221110132540.44c9463c@hermes.local>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:25:40 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: John Ousterhout <ouster@...stanford.edu>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Upstream Homa?
On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:42:35 -0800
John Ousterhout <ouster@...stanford.edu> wrote:
> Several people at the netdev conference asked me if I was working to
> upstream the Homa transport protocol into the kernel. I have assumed
> that this is premature, given that there is not yet significant usage of
> Homa, but they encouraged me to start a discussion about upstreaming
> with the netdev community.
>
> So, I'm sending this message to ask for advice about (a) what state
> Homa needs to reach before it would be appropriate to upstream it,
> and, (b) if/when that time is reached, what is the right way to go about it.
> Homa currently has about 13K lines of code, which I assume is far too
> large for a single patch set; at the same time, it's hard to envision a
> manageable first patch set with enough functionality to be useful by itself.
>
> -John-
There are lots of experimental protocols already in Linux.
The usual upstream problem areas are:
- coding style
- compatibility layers
developers don't care about code to run on older versions or other OS.
- user API
once you define it hard to change, need to get it right
- tests
is there a way to make sure it works on all platforms
Heuristics and bug fixing are fine, in fact having a wider community
will help.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists