> > Isn't RDMA _part_ of the "software net stack" within Linux?
> It very much is not so. This is just nit-picking. You can draw the boundary of the "software net stack" wherever you want, but I think Sean's point was just that RDMA drivers already are part of Linux, and we all want them to get better. > When using RDMA you lose the capability to do packet shaping, > classification, and all the other wonderful networking facilities > you've grown to love and use over the years. Same thing with TSO and LRO and who knows what else. I know you're going to make a distinction between "stateless" and "stateful" offloads, but really it's just an arbitrary distinction between things you like and things you don't. > Imagine if you didn't know any of this, you purchase and begin to > deploy a huge piece of RDMA infrastructure, you then get the mandate > from IT that you need to add firewalling on the RDMA connections at > the host level, and "oh shit" you can't? It's ironic that you bring up firewalling. I've had vendors of iWARP hardware tell me they would *love* to work with the community to make firewalling work better for RDMA connections. But instead we get the catch-22 of your changing arguments -- first, you won't even consider changes that might help RDMA work better in the name of maintainability; then you have to protect poor, ignorant users from accidentally using RDMA because of some problem or another; and then when someone tries to fix some of the problems you mention, it's back to step one. Obviously some decisions have been prejudged here, so I guess this moves to the realm of politics. I have plenty of interesting technical stuff, so I'll leave it to the people with a horse in the race to find ways to twist your arm. - R. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
