![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Steve Wise wrote: > > > David Miller wrote: >> From: Sean Hefty <mshefty@ichips.intel.com> >> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:40:16 -0700 >> >>> Steve Wise wrote: >>>> Any more comments? >>> Does anyone have ideas on how to reserve the port space without using >>> a struct socket? >> >> How about we just remove the RDMA stack altogether? I am not at all >> kidding. If you guys can't stay in your sand box and need to cause >> problems for the normal network stack, it's unacceptable. We were >> told all along the if RDMA went into the tree none of this kind of >> stuff would be an issue. > > I think removing the RDMA stack is the wrong thing to do, and you > shouldn't just threaten to yank entire subsystems because you don't like > the technology. Lets keep this constructive, can we? RDMA should get > the respect of any other technology in Linux. Maybe its a niche in your > opinion, but come on, there's more RDMA users than say, the sparc64 > port. Eh? It's not about being a niche. It's about creating a maintainable software net stack that has predictable behavior. Needing to reach out of the RDMA sandbox and reserve net stack resources away from itself travels a path we've consistently avoided. >> I will NACK any patch that opens up sockets to eat up ports or >> anything stupid like that. > > Got it. Ditto for me as well. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-08-16 04:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||