Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the rdma tree | From | Max Gurtovoy <> | Date | Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:56:29 +0300 |
| |
On 6/3/2020 2:32 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 01:40:51AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >> On 6/3/2020 12:37 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 6/2/20 1:09 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:02:55PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>> On 6/2/20 1:01 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:37:26AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/2/2020 5:56 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This looks good to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you share a pointer to the tree so we'll test it in our labs ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> need to re-test: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. srq per core >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. srq per core + T10-PI >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And both will run with shared CQ. >>>>>> Max, this is too much conflict to send to Linus between your own >>>>>> patches. I am going to drop the nvme part of this from RDMA. >>>>>> >>>>>> Normally I don't like applying partial series, but due to this tree >>>>>> split, you can send the rebased nvme part through the nvme/block tree >>>>>> at rc1 in two weeks.. >> Yes, I'll send it in 2 weeks. >> >> Actually I hoped the iSER patches for CQ pool will be sent in this series >> but eventually they were not. >> >> This way we could have taken only the iser part and the new API. >> >> I saw the pulled version too late since I wasn't CCed to it and it was >> already merged before I had a chance to warn you about possible conflict. >> >> I think in general we should try to add new RDMA APIs first with iSER/SRP >> and avoid conflicting trees. > If you are careful we can construct a shared branch and if Jens/etc is > willing he can pull the RDMA base code after RDMA merges the branch > and then apply the nvme parts. This is how things work with netdev > > It is tricky and you have to plan for it during your submission step, > but we should be able to manage in most cases if this comes up more > often.
I think we can construct a branch like this for dedicated series and delete it after the acceptance.
In case of new APIs for RDMA that involve touching NVMe stuff - we'll create this branch and ask Jens to pull it as you suggested.
And as a general note, I suggest we won't merge NVMe/RDMA stuff to rdma-next without cooperation with Jens.
-Max.
> > Jason
| |