Subject: Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v2 0/6] Extend XFRM core to allow full offload configuration

From: Jakub Kicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 08:47:07 -0700

On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 08:52:26 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > Let me be very clear - as far as I'm concerned no part of the RDMA
> > stack belongs in netdev. What's there is there, but do not try to use
> > that argument to justify more stuff.
> > 
> > If someone from the community thinks that I should have interest in
> > working on / helping proprietary protocol stacks please let me know,
> > because right now I have none.  
> 
> No one is asking from you to work on proprietary protocols.

That's not what I said. I don't know English grammar enough but you
took the modifying (descriptive? genitive?) noun and treated it as 
the object.

I don't want to be in any way disrespectful to the technology you
invest your time in. Or argue with any beliefs you have about it.

> RoCE is IBTA standard protocol and iWARP is IETF one. They both fully
> documented and backed by multiple vendors (Intel, IBM, Mellanox, Cavium
> ...).
> 
> There is also interoperability lab https://www.iol.unh.edu/ that runs
> various tests. In addition to distro interoperability labs testing.
> 
> I invite you to take a look on Jason's presentation "Challenges of the
> RDMA subsystem", which he gave 3 years ago, about RDMA and challenges
> with netdev.
> https://lpc.events/event/4/contributions/364/

I appreciate the invite, but it's not high enough on my list of interest
to spend time on.