> Roland stated that it has never been the case that we have
 > rejected adding support for a certain class of devices on the
 > kinds of merits being discussed in this thread.  And I'm saying
 > that TOE is such a case where we have emphatically done so.

Well, in the past it's seemed more like patches have been rejected not
because of a blanket refusal to consider support for certain hardware,
but rather because of issues with the patches themselves.  eg last
year when Chelsio submitted some TOE hooks, you wrote the following
<http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-netdev&m=112382991506811&w=2>

  >> There is no way you're going to be allowed to call such deep TCP
  >> internals from your driver.

  >> This would mean that every time we wish to change the data structures
  >> and interfaces for TCP socket lookup, your drivers would need to
  >> change.

which looks like a very good reason to reject the changes.

 > So I am not saying iWARP or RDMA is equal to TOE, and if you had
 > actually read this thread you would have understood that.

There's definitely been quite a bit of conflation between the two in
this thread, even if you're not responsible...

 - R.