From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com (J Freyensee) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 11:20:13 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] nvme : Add sysfs entry for NVMe CMBs when appropriate In-Reply-To: <20161005174841.GA23679@cgy1-donard.priv.deltatee.com> References: <1475014513-18083-1-git-send-email-sbates@raithlin.com> <1475014513-18083-2-git-send-email-sbates@raithlin.com> <9d062df7-d895-4c21-ca0d-b4fc3cb878c1@grimberg.me> <20161005143843.GA23281@cgy1-donard.priv.deltatee.com> <20161005174841.GA23679@cgy1-donard.priv.deltatee.com> Message-ID: <1475691613.26632.36.camel@linux.intel.com> On Wed, 2016-10-05@11:48 -0600, Stephen Bates wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016@07:50:57PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The fabrics specification currently denotes the CMBLOC and CMBSZ > > > properties as reserved [1]. > > > > Managed to forget that... So I guess I'm fine with the patch as > > it is, > > > > Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg > > > > Sagi > > Thanks! I will work on a v1 to address Jonathan's issue and add your > tag to that. Coming soon... You can add my tag too if you like as well, as I've chatted my thoughts to you via phone/email: Reviewed-by: Jay Freyensee > > > > > > > > > Also I am wondering where the physical memory backing a fabrics > > > CMB > > > would reside. Would this be memory in the fabric NIC on the host, > > > in > > > the NIC on the target or somewhere else? > > > > This was discussed in the WG a few times before, not sure if we > > can discuss this before its in the spec though... > > Ooops, you are correct. Us lowely kernel developers should not be > discussing things related to changes to the NVMe specification ;-). I > will take this discussion inside the NVMe technical working group. > > Cheers > > Stephen > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-nvme mailing list > Linux-nvme at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme