Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 00/15] eth: fbnic: Add network driver for Meta Platforms Host Network Interface

From: Jason Gunthorpe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:54:57 -0300

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 11:38:59AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > phenomenon where if we even brushed against block of upstream code
> > > that wasn't being well maintained we would be asked to fix it up and
> > > address existing issues before we could upstream any patches.
> >
> > Well, Intel has it's own karma problems in the kernel community. :(
> 
> Oh, I know. I resisted the urge to push out the driver as "idgaf:
> Internal Device Generated at Facebook" on April 1st instead of
> "fbnic"

That would have been hilarious!

> to poke fun at the presentation they did at Netdev 0x16 where they
> were trying to say all the vendors should be implementing "idpf" since
> they made it a standard.

Yes, I noticed this also. For all the worries I've heard lately about
lack of commonality/etc it seems like a major missed ecosystem
opportunity to have not invested in an industry standard. From what I
can see fbnic has no hope of being anything more than a one-off
generation for Meta. Too many silicon design micro-details are exposed
to the OS.

> It all depends on your definition of being extractive. I would assume
> a "consumer" that is running a large number of systems and is capable
> of providing sophisticated feedback on issues found within the kernel,
> in many cases providing fixes for said issues, or working with
> maintainers on resolution of said issues, is not extractive.

I don't know, as I said there is some grey scale.

IMHO it is not appropriate to make such decisions based on some
company wide metric. fbnic team alone should be judged and shouldn't
get a free ride based on the other good work Meta is doing. Otherwise
it turns into a thing where bigger/richer companies just get to do
whatever they want because they do the most "good" in aggregate.

Jason