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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
