On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 20:27:17 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 03:19:22PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 12:13:00 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > I can't accept yours because it means RDMA stops existing. So we must > > > continue with what has been done for the last 15 years - RDMA > > > (selectively) mirrors the IP and everything running at or below the IP > > > header level. > > > > Re-implement bits you need for configuration, not stop existing. > > This is completely technically infeasible. They share IP addresess, we > cannot have two stacks running IPSEC on top of othe same IP address > without co-ordinating. Almost every part is like that to some degree. > > And even if we somehow did keep things 100% seperated, with seperated > IPs - Linus isn't going to let me copy and paste the huge swaths of > core netdev code required to do IP stuff (arp, nd, routing, icmp, > bonding, etc) into RDMA for a reason like this. > > So, it really is a complete death blow to demand to keep these things > separated. > > Let alone what would happen if we applied the same logic to all the > places sharing the IP with HW - remember iscsi? FCoE? Who said IP configuration. > > > What do you mean? "make it all the same" can be done with private or > > > open standards? > > > > Oh. If it's someone private specs its probably irrelevant to the open > > source community? > > No, it's what I said I dislike. Private specs, private HW, private > userspace, proprietary kernel forks, but people still try to get > incomplete pieces of stuff into the mainline kernel. > > > Sad situation. Not my employer and not in netdev, I hope. > > AFAIK your and my employer have done a good job together on joint > projects over the years and have managed to end up with open source > user spaces for almost everything subtantive in the kernel. Great. Let's make a note of that so there are not more accusations that my objectives for netdev are somehow driven by evil hyperscalers. > > > I have no idea how you are jumping to some conclusion that since the > > > RDMA team made their patches it somehow has anything to do with the > > > work Leon and the netdev team will deliver in future? > > > > We shouldn't reneg what was agreed on earlier. > > Who reneg'd? We always said we'd do it and we are still saying we plan > to do it. > > > > Hasn't our netdev team done enough work on TC stuff to earn some > > > faith that we do actually care about TC as part of our portfolio? > > > > Shouldn't have brought it up in the past discussion then :| > > Being asked to implement something tangential to your goals for > > the community to accept your code is hardly unheard of. > > We agreed to implement. I'm asking for patience since we have a good > historical track record. If you can't make a strong commitment, what's the point in time, at which if I were angry that the tc redirect was not posted yet - you'd consider it understandable? Perhaps that's sufficiently not legally binding? :)
