On 12/04/2015 04:53 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
I actually tried to push the generic checksum idea for fm10k back
during hardware development but ended up losing that battle. The
problem is you have to have some customer willing to spend the cash in
order to get a feature, and the fact is nobody other than Tom has been
pushing for this.
Very well, it is true that I only represent one user of networking
protocols, grant it a very large one. I will shut up now. If other
USERS want to chime in on what is best I'll certainly listen.
Tom,
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing you are actually
representing a large user here. By large user I assume you are implying
Facebook? I agree that your point is very valid on the merits of the
1's compliment checksum likely being a useful feature, but I just think
you are going about this the wrong way as obstructing things like this
does little to impact hardware design decisions.
If we want to win over the manufacturers we would have to speak with
money as they aren't going to make something unless they are convinced
they can sell it. Simply insisting we want some feature doesn't do much
without the customer demand to back it up. So, unless you are telling
me Facebook is going to let this feature influence a purchasing decision
in the future, the argument is B.S.
Not having this feature has to in some way impact sales. You need to
make the 1's compliment checksum a check box type item that if the part
doesn't have the customer won't buy. If you were to come up with some
sort of data demonstrating the need for the feature and were to
associate it with something such as Open Compute then you would start to
go a long way towards winning over consumers that they need the feature
and as a result convincing the manufacturers that they have to provide it.
- Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
