On August 6, 2024 8:06:09 PM EDT, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 08:33:36AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: >> >> > For the specific issue of discussing fwctl, the Plumbers session would >> > be better because it can likely gather all interested parties. >> >> Keep in mind fwctl is already at the end of a long journey of >> conference discussions and talks spanning 3 years back now. It now >> represents the generalized consensus between multiple driver >> maintainers for at least one side of the debate. >> >> There was also a fwctl presentation at netdev conf a few weeks ago. >> >> In as far as the cross-subsystem NAK, I don't expect more discussion >> to result in any change to people's opinions. RDMA side will continue >> to want access to the shared device FW, and netdev side will continue >> to want to deny access to the shared device FW. > >As I mentioned before, this is what I hoped to mediate. The on-list >discussion has seem to hit a deficit of trust roadblock, not a deficit >of technical merit. > >All I can say is the discussion is worth a try. With respect to a >precedent for a stalemate moving forward, I point to the MGLRU example. >That proposal had all of the technical merit on the list, but was not >making any clear progress to being merged. It was interesting to watch >that all thaw in real time at LSF/MM (2022) where in person >collaboration yielded strategy concessions, and mutual understanding >that email was never going to produce. Well, plumbers stands ready. We're out of A/V rooms, but if you can do your own A/V with one of the owl cameras we can do a BoF session that can be open to remote participants as well. I'll be happy to do the setup. Regards, James -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
