From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36AA7C636D6 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2023 01:57:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233208AbjBDB5n (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2023 20:57:43 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:32858 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232463AbjBDB5n (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Feb 2023 20:57:43 -0500 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0202B36458; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 17:57:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 902B462053; Sat, 4 Feb 2023 01:57:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7088C433D2; Sat, 4 Feb 2023 01:57:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1675475860; bh=bVorAYvZofJTR0LZ3KP1S/JX6BONaZ+DPRW7cXlor7g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=KffP9T0LN7C2vDD8ETlwHzmzh3iikRWqvPg4m46AtmCp0qqrt1/h5mM1COvlgkJRM S2C0XT/ztoadCr07dDnVL9P1PMPzyta96tOwYhHU6u9hR45gpSieo+QcVErinyFWKA GIueO0nNeQjGczdBfzbYJH55WNm6o6nHX+EEkdWFt565K2VKhiOLbwlXj5RlnlrtL5 cE1kwitt3o/aLEU4eH2pNMaUipw2e6eZ/wNcD/GD8368bFkH4Odf9TIOSn/9saoXpM c4LcfnPwcWmbFsG04hQpOJ1k9TkkxLUg6NoPAB0HP1SmyV6FSHh1fdEGQqZ2AvuHRf Lg0CzgMsJ3MsA== Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 17:57:39 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Saeed Mahameed Cc: Leon Romanovsky , Jason Gunthorpe , "David S. Miller" , Paolo Abeni , Eric Dumazet , Saeed Mahameed , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: pull-request: mlx5-next 2023-01-24 V2 Message-ID: <20230203175739.1fef3a24@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20230202091312.578aeb03@kernel.org> <20230202092507.57698495@kernel.org> <20230202095453.68f850bc@kernel.org> <20230202103004.26ab6ae9@kernel.org> <20230203131456.42c14edc@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 16:47:26 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote: > On 03 Feb 13:14, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > >I believe Paolo is planning to look next week. No idea why the patch > >got marked as Accepted =F0=9F=A4=B7=EF=B8=8F > > > >On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 12:05:56 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote: =20 > >> I don't agree, RDMA isn't proprietary, and I wish not to go into this > >> political discussion, as this series isn't the right place for that. = =20 > > > >I don't think it's a political discussion. Or at least not in the sense > >of hidden agendas because our agendas aren't hidden. I'm a maintainer > >of an open source networking stack, you're working for a vendor who > >wants to sell their own networking stack. >=20 > we don't own any networking stack.. yes we do work on multiple opesource > fronts and projects, but how is that related to this patchset ?=20 > For the sake of this patchset, this purely mlx5 device management, and > yes for RoCE traffic, RoCE is RDMA spec and standard and an open source > mainstream kernel stack. My memory is that Leon proposed IPsec offload, I said "you're doing this for RDMA", he said "no we will also need this for TC redirect", I said "if you implement TC redirect that's a legit use of netdev APIs". And now RDMA integration is coming, and no TC in sight. I think it's reasonable for me to feel mislead. > >I don't think we can expect Linus to take a hard stand on this, but > >do not expect us to lend you our APIs and help you sell your product. > > > >Saying that RDMA/RoCE is not proprietary because there is a "standard" > >is like saying that Windows is an open source operating system because > >it supports POSIX. >=20 > Apples and oranges, really :) ..=20 >=20 > Sorry but I have to disagree, the difference here is that the spec > is open and the stack is in the mainstream linux, and there are at least > 10 active vendors currently contributing to rdma with open source driver > and open source user space, and there is pure software RoCE > implementation for the paranoid who don't trust hw vendors, oh and it uses > netdev APIs, should that be also forbidden ?? I don't want to be having theoretical discussions. In theory there could exist a fully open RoCE implementation which inter-operates with all other implementations perfectly. Agreed. > What you're really saying here is that no vendor is allowed to do any > offload or acceleration .. IDK where you got that form, and it's obviously counter factual. If I was nacking all offloads, I've have nacked the "full" IPsec offload and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.