On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 02:05:07PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 07:11:23PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > If you want hardware knowledgeable people to help, then you need to go > > > to the forums they are active in. > > > > > > This isn't just a software exercise. > > > > Previous changes to the uABI (for example, XRC) were not accepted > > until they were standardized by the IBTA. An exception that I'm > > aware of are the flow specs. > > We need to decide as a community what we want to do here, because this > uncertain process is getting tiring for everyone. > > The Collab Summit discussions ended with a general consensus that some > things would go to the driver-specific channel, while hardware > behavior related to the common uAPI would go through at least a > multi-vendor sign off process - like IBTA. Jason, We did ALL and much more from the discussed for RSS patches and at the end, we saw half a word from the maintainer about the future plans for its acceptance. > > We didn't talk about how to expose them to apps in userspace once they > were exposed through the kernel. > > It is pretty obvious the current 'process' isn't working. There is no meaning of "process" without people and their execution, and right now, I don't see any execution of it in the linux RDMA community (fixes and ULP changes are not merged for a while).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
