From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 4 16:44:33 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D683E106564A for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:44:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A198FC08 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 16:44:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B28346B5C; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:44:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 780418A027; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:44:32 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:44:26 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/7.3-CBSD-20101102; KDE/4.4.5; amd64; ; ) References: <20110104082252.45bb5e7f@kan.dnsalias.net> In-Reply-To: <20110104082252.45bb5e7f@kan.dnsalias.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201101041144.26815.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:44:32 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.3 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=4.2 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on bigwig.baldwin.cx Cc: Subject: Re: Linux kernel compatability X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:44:33 -0000 On Tuesday, January 04, 2011 8:22:52 am Alexander Kabaev wrote: > The considerations are simple enough. First, we do not have many IB > users of FreeBSD in the wild and those that we have (Isilon) seem to be > perfectly capable of managing the IB stack out of the tree, without > dumping the thousands of lines of the code into the base. If they had > the stack before, but were not willing/capable to provide adequate care > for it in the past, there is no reason to expect things to change with > second stack, which now will rot in our tree instead of theirs. Actually, there are three different companies funding the IB port because there are in fact multiple users of IB on FreeBSD. It seems silly to have three+ different versions of the IB stack maintained separately rather than pooling developer resources across multiple FreeBSD consumers to amortize the future maintenance costs. -- John Baldwin