From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chien Tin Tung Subject: Re: [rdma-next 01/33] Revert "IB/core: Add flow control to the portmapper netlink calls" Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 11:21:35 -0500 Message-ID: <20170801162135.GA240@ctung-MOBL3.amr.corp.intel.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> <20170801141842.GA1808@ctung-MOBL3.amr.corp.intel.com> <20170801151511.GA13376@ctung-MOBL3.amr.corp.intel.com> <1501600807.2475.4.camel@wdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1501600807.2475.4.camel-Sjgp3cTcYWE@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "cl-vYTEC60ixJUAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:20:11PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 10:15 -0500, Chien Tin Tung wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:22:47AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote: > > > On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Chien Tin Tung wrote: > > > > > > > Why do I need to explain the original patch? It was accepted many kernels > > > > ago. Your questions on the original were based on false assumptions and > > > > facts which I've proven over and over. You are right in that I do > > > > not want to revisit those either. There is a patch that can solve > > > > the problem you are facing but yet you insist on the revert. This is > > > > very puzzling to me. You simply refuse to move this forward. That > > > > is your choice but revert is a no go for me. > > > > > > Ok this is pretty confusing to someone not involved in the prior > > > discussions. Could both of your stop attacking each other and start > > > talking about the technical issues? > > > > There's been multiple threads over this revert. This one is the > > latest Leon walked away from: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9814367/ > > > > I'm simply asking for proof/evidence/facts to back up Leon's claims. > > Show me the code/stack trace/whatever and I will be happy to admit wrong > > publicly on the list and move on. I do have better things to do than > > to NACK a revert. > > Hello Chien, > > What Leon wrote, namely that calls that send netlink data from kernel to user > space should be non-blocking makes sense to me. That's been addressed in so many emails I won't rehash. If _no_one_ should block (it is actually a one shot retry with a timeout) sending Netlink message from kernel to user, why don't Leon or you patch that code out? All of it, not just ibnl_unicast(). > So please be more constructive than replying with "NAK". I've sent so many emails (some you were CC'd), so I'm not sure how much more constructive I can be. BTW, did you see the one with my attempt at world peace (https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg50591.html)? Here are the relevant threads for people that are interested in participating in this discussion. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9814367/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9752855/ Chien -- 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