On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 10:35:37AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 09:27:32AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Fri, 6 May 2016, Jason Gunthorpe 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. > > > > An IBTA process? How would that be relevant here? > > What do you mean? IBTA is the only multi-vendor body left working on > standardizing the hardware specification for verbs. > > These various recent patches are adding new hardware features to > verbs. These patches are exporting hardware capabilities and not "adding new hardware features". > > If you want hardware knowledgeable people to help, then you need to go > to the forums they are active in. It doesn't make sense to look after these people who have no interest in linux RDMA at all.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
