From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leon Romanovsky Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next] Revert "IB/core: Add flow control to the portmapper netlink calls" Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 07:10:22 +0300 Message-ID: <20170601041022.GM5406@mtr-leonro.local> References: <20170529082423.1180-1-leon@kernel.org> <20170530212431.GA21008@ssaleem-MOBL4.amr.corp.intel.com> <20170531040437.GE5406@mtr-leonro.local> <20170531174245.GA16304@ssaleem-MOBL4.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Cqq5NadOW2RfLMJ/" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170531174245.GA16304-GOXS9JX10wfOxmVO0tvppfooFf0ArEBIu+b9c/7xato@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Shiraz Saleem Cc: Doug Ledford , Mustafa Ismail , Faisal Latif , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Leon Romanovsky , Steve Wise List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org --Cqq5NadOW2RfLMJ/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:42:45PM -0500, Shiraz Saleem wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 07:04:37AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 04:24:31PM -0500, Shiraz Saleem wrote: > > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:24:23AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky > > > > > > > 3. The commit cea05eadde made libnl library (basic block of user-space part of netlink) > > to work incorrectly and not according to _blocking/_nonblocking semantics. > > How? Is libnl calling ibnl_unicast? As far we can understand ibnl_unicast is only called > by portmapper kernel code. Yes, libnl is calling to ibnl_unicast() and this is why it brought my attention to regression caused by commit which I'm reverting. Bottom-up flow: ibnl_unicast send_nlmsg_done iwpm_send_mapinfo iwpm_mapping_info_cb [RDMA_NL_IWPM_MAPINFO] = {.dump = iwpm_mapping_info_cb} ibnl_rcv_msg netlink_rcv_skb(skb, &ibnl_rcv_msg); ----- libnl: nl_recvmsgs() > > > 4. Reverting is a common practice in Linux kernel. Patches are not > > carved in stones. > > Reverting a patch that's introduced during RC cycle is fine, introducing > regression is NOT and that is what you are doing by simply proposing to revert > this patch. Reverting this patch will introduce a REGRESSION error with respect to > port mapping functionality for all iWARP vendors. Interesting and how did all these iWARP vendors survive before your patch? > > > 5. I proposed a solution -> go and fix your user space program. > This is a kernel patch you are trying to revert, you are breaking existing > kernel functionality. Nothing to do with user space. Sorry, but it is not the case. The user space is broken. Thanks --Cqq5NadOW2RfLMJ/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEkhr/r4Op1/04yqaB5GN7iDZyWKcFAlkvk64ACgkQ5GN7iDZy WKeK0BAAiD3AgflhqufqSMHqibSMcfAPIYTJKF/1XzoslF3mMR7hA4eX2C1ASBEa 8T7g8guJQTdhcW/v6ygopgbG0pbjao4O7YIpDjyxLl7Yxl12XYPZxeGpeb4bJa9r nROkU1g6S46e5vIFMSRUxArKIKOvSUc1cdbLWyinMrHdbp3KnUy5D59DxpnVxsjp ZI6E4ronjOM5xja8ml78Zf0p0e2z5bYztBrsbR365soxiMCT3kD5q+IgeCa6gH6x rl6RdboKUFKOD4oRMsyLK2UUNxI/SqzzoKqwaEMODSUiuJLG6s78BGahMZg+aFJP IEvqQP3A+9n8pJYLM9WEHAY2WPs/HSBlkzUb9KXbBrYP4F+0WQPvGVwpgpLq4kWr cm+HO8Bugq/9+aBClqIX8vUgCFURffmepkVg+sAPyeyghYOeAQQ+Nm6uYYgdr4QZ k0xPFyIPpqaIkT5OKjbLMymejRadziwVLSPBvMJT4DtReKHXU3nUXbRQ7JRPAatY IBee1Masi+60HcCdubY0ksZLCSvlqWMvCg/0z129aL0ORum4MGVsqcje33vSI5Yq gvc00dzmK7WnrMj3VfzJ4TGnel39v1oowqGVEJjowZaNU+RNeY8FzdNSKlPvmxxZ to0chIO9mr2HxRD8V36eQSoypaC5K1KpkTuudDF3Ky8uAhi2S9g= =PIjh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Cqq5NadOW2RfLMJ/-- -- 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