From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: [rdma-next 01/33] Revert "IB/core: Add flow control to the portmapper netlink calls" Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2017 08:42:39 -0400 Message-ID: <1501764159.117042.9.camel@redhat.com> References: <20170801120536.540-1-leon@kernel.org> <20170801120536.540-2-leon@kernel.org> <20170801133832.GA11812@ctung-MOBL3.amr.corp.intel.com> <20170801141023.GM13672@mtr-leonro.local> <1501696661.109555.6.camel@redhat.com> <20170802185405.GE13672@mtr-leonro.local> <1501719575.117042.4.camel@redhat.com> <20170803051032.GF13672@mtr-leonro.local> <1501762973.117042.7.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1501762973.117042.7.camel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Chien Tin Tung , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 08:22 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 08:10 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > Because, I truly believe that they proposed the nasty hack, which > > doesn't fix the real problem - inability to deal with losses of > > netlink > > messages. > > In so much as the iwpmd needs to be modified to do a resync, I agree > with you. But, the fix they made caused the system to be "reliable > enough" that the problem more or less disappeared. It is true that, > given enough load, the problem could resurface, but that hasn't > happened yet in the real world. > > However, iwpmd is part of rdma-core now, so *anyone* can fix it to do > the resyncs as needed (and I don't know, maybe it does, I just did a > quick grep for ENOBUFS to see if they capture that error and do a > resync on it, and saw no hits for that with grep). And in case this didn't sink in from the above statement, allow me to make it explicit: Does it not strike you how much of a failure it was on your part to submit a kernel patch that breaks iwpmd, code that is now part of rdma- core, FOR WHICH YOU ARE COMAINTAINER, without the corresponding patches to rdma-core to fix the real issue? You don't get to tell Chien to "go fix his software" because his software is part of rdma-core for which you are co-maintainer and ultimately you bear responsibility for rdma- core as a whole whether Chien fixes his stuff or not! Your job is to make sure that rdma-core is never broken in the way you were going to break it. You had a conflict of interest here between your kernel work and your user space responsibilities and you did not choose well how to resolve that conflict. -- Doug Ledford GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html