On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 11:38:59AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > phenomenon where if we even brushed against block of upstream code > > > that wasn't being well maintained we would be asked to fix it up and > > > address existing issues before we could upstream any patches. > > > > Well, Intel has it's own karma problems in the kernel community. :( > > Oh, I know. I resisted the urge to push out the driver as "idgaf: > Internal Device Generated at Facebook" on April 1st instead of > "fbnic" That would have been hilarious! > to poke fun at the presentation they did at Netdev 0x16 where they > were trying to say all the vendors should be implementing "idpf" since > they made it a standard. Yes, I noticed this also. For all the worries I've heard lately about lack of commonality/etc it seems like a major missed ecosystem opportunity to have not invested in an industry standard. From what I can see fbnic has no hope of being anything more than a one-off generation for Meta. Too many silicon design micro-details are exposed to the OS. > It all depends on your definition of being extractive. I would assume > a "consumer" that is running a large number of systems and is capable > of providing sophisticated feedback on issues found within the kernel, > in many cases providing fixes for said issues, or working with > maintainers on resolution of said issues, is not extractive. I don't know, as I said there is some grey scale. IMHO it is not appropriate to make such decisions based on some company wide metric. fbnic team alone should be judged and shouldn't get a free ride based on the other good work Meta is doing. Otherwise it turns into a thing where bigger/richer companies just get to do whatever they want because they do the most "good" in aggregate. Jason
