Re: PATCH - InfiniBand Access Layer (IBAL)

From: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Matti Aarnio <matti.aarnio@zmailer.org>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	"Woodruff, Robert J" <woody@co.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Hefty,
	Sean" <sean.hefty@intel.com>,
	"Coffman, Jerrie L" <jerrie.l.coffman@intel.com>,
	"Davis, Arlin R" <arlin.r.davis@intel.com>,
	marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com
Subject: Re: PATCH - InfiniBand Access Layer (IBAL)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:09:27 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <403CF2E7.4020303@techsource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402251003440.2461@ppc970.osdl.org>

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> 
>>If we take the vendor persåective here. Then why should they make their
>>driver open source, when the middle layer is not part of the 
>>main stream kernel?
> 
> 
> And why should we take the vendor perspective?
> 
> We don't add drivers for stuff that doesn't exist, and is not even likely 
> to be used much. That way, when problems occur (and they _will_ occur), 
> the burden of the crap will be firmly on the shoulders of the people who 
> should care.

I was not suggesting that we add drivers or even the middle layer to the 
mainline kernel until there is some use for it.  Rather, it wouldn't be 
a bad idea for someone to DEVELOP it as a patch which could be mainlined 
the moment there became a demand for it.  This also leaves the work in 
the hands of those who should care, because anyone using the middle 
layer has the 'disadvantage' of using a non-standard patch which they 
have to take responsibility for using.