On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 09:20:49PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > This is where I get upset with the process we are following here, > > without input from other hardware architects in other companies, > > it is hard to design something truly common. > > Presumably the other vendors are listening in on this conversation. The > lack of alternate proposals and objections by them has often been > considered silent approval in the past. I know the various hardware architects that would be involved with a IBTA process/etc do not monitor this list. AFAIK, no other linux community works in a way where the Linux centric mailing list sets hardware standards. Eg linux-scsi doesn't drive the T10 agenda, linux-pci doesn't drive the PCISIG, etc. At best they inspire work in those other communities. > > When multiple vendors actually implement a verbs feature (or agree to > > implement one via IBTA/IETF/etc) then it becomes much safer to > > enshrine it forever in a common kernel uAPI. > > On the other hand nothing is going to happen if one vendor does not push > ahead. There were multiple implementations in the IP stack as well until > things settled. We need to be able to do the same and not stifle > innovation by making a vendor to wait until the competition comes > up with something similar. Agreed. I'm just saying, do it in user space and leave the common kernel uAPI alone until a more obvious consensus is reached. That should speed everything up.. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
