Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-133437-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 10:48:29 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Christoph Hellwig
 <hch@infradead.org>, Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann
 <arnd@arndb.de>, Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>, Jiri Pirko
 <jiri@nvidia.com>, Leonid Bloch <lbloch@nvidia.com>, Itay Avraham
 <itayavr@nvidia.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>, Aron Silverton
 <aron.silverton@oracle.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Andy Gospodarek
 <andrew.gospodarek@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] mlx5 ConnectX control misc driver
Message-ID: <20240405104829.2ba1a3b1@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240405083827.78cc1b20@kernel.org>
References: <e5c61607-4d66-4cd8-bf45-0aac2b3af126@kernel.org>
	<20240322154027.5555780a@kernel.org>
	<1cd2a70c-17b8-4421-b70b-3c0199a84a6a@kernel.org>
	<0ea32dd4-f408-5870-77eb-f18899f1ad44@gmail.com>
	<20240402184055.GP946323@nvidia.com>
	<83025203-fefb-d828-724d-259e5df7c1b2@gmail.com>
	<20240404183305.GM1723999@nvidia.com>
	<20240404125339.14695f27@kernel.org>
	<20240404204454.GO1723999@nvidia.com>
	<20240404143407.64b44a88@kernel.org>
	<20240405111306.GB5383@nvidia.com>
	<20240405083827.78cc1b20@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 08:38:27 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > It is really strange to hear you act like "Meta doesn't need
> > provisioning or tuning" when the NIC Meta uses is *highly* customized
> > specifically for Meta to the point it is an entirely different
> > product. Of course you don't need provisioning, alot of other people
> > did alot of hard work to make it that way.  
> 
> :) When you say *highly* I think I know what you mean :)
> It'd be unprofessional for us to discuss here, and I really doubt 
> you actually want to air that laundry publicly :) :)

Maybe that's unnecessary air of mystery. Long time ago there was 
a concern about impact of the rapidly developing eswitch offload
market(?) on FW stability so a requirement was put forward to 
*compile out* major unused FW features. Such requirement is no 
longer in place (or fulfilled) largely due to my support.

I wish I could support that out by referring to the OCP NIC SW spec,
by it's stuck in "legal review" of one of the vendors for months.
I'd like to ask that vendor not to pull up the ladder and let everyone
else enjoy access to NIC requirements and recommendations from Meta
and Google.