Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Introduce fwctl subystem

From: Saeed Mahameed <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 14:28:05 -0700

On 04 Jun 07:04, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:01:58 -0600 David Ahern wrote:
>> On 6/3/24 12:42 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> > Somewhat related, I saw nVidia sells various interesting features in its
>> > DOCA stack. Is that Open Source?
>>
>> Seriously, Jakub, how is that in any way related to this patch set?
>
>Whether they admit it or not, DOCA is a major reason nVidia wants
>this to be standalone rather than part of RDMA.
>

No, DOCA isn't on the agenda for this new interface. But what is the point
in arguing? Apparently the vendor is not credible enough in your opinion.
Which is an absolute outrageous grounds for a NAK.

Anyway I don't see your point in bringing up DOCA here, but obviously once 
this interface is accepted, all developers are welcome to use it,
including DOCA developers of course..

That being said, the why we need this is crystal clear in the 
cover-letter and previous submission discussions, bringing random SDKs
into this discussion is not objective and counter productive to the
technical discussion.

>> You are basically suggesting that if any vendor ever has an out of tree
>> option for its hardware every patch it sends should be considered a ruse
>> to enable or simplify proprietary options.
>

It's apparent that you're attributing sinister agendas to patchsets when
you fail to offer valid technical opinions regarding the NAK nature. Let's
address this outside of this patchset, as this isn't the first occurrence.
Consistency in evaluating patches is crucial; some, like the fbnic and
idpf, seem to go unquestioned, while others face scrutiny.

>Ooo, is that a sore spot?
>
>I don't begrudge anyone building proprietary options, but leave
>upstream out of it.
>