Re: [PATCH for-next 0/2] Host information userspace version

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 11:56:01AM +0200, Gal Pressman wrote:
> On 27/01/2021 19:53, Gal Pressman wrote:
> > On 27/01/2021 18:57, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 09:40:49PM +0200, Gal Pressman wrote:
> >>> On 21/01/2021 20:35, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 09:17:14AM +0200, Gal Pressman wrote:
> >>>>> On 05/01/2021 12:43, Gal Pressman wrote:
> >>>>>> The following two patches add the userspace version to the host
> >>>>>> information struct reported to the device, used for debugging and
> >>>>>> troubleshooting purposes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> PR was sent:
> >>>>>> https://github.com/linux-rdma/rdma-core/pull/918
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Gal
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anything stopping this series from being merged?
> >>>>
> >>>> Honestly, I'm not very keen on this
> >>>>
> >>>> Why does this have to go through a kernel driver, can't you collect
> >>>> OS telemetry some other way?
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, it has to go through rdma-core somehow, what sort of component can
> >>> rdma-core interact with to pass such data? The only one I could think of is the
> >>> RDMA driver :).
> >>>
> >>> As I said, I get your concern, I was going on and off about this as well, but
> >>> the userspace version is a very useful piece of information in the context of a
> >>> kernel bypass device. It's just as important as the kernel version.
> >>> I agree that this is not the place to pass things like gcc version, but I don't
> >>> think that's the case here :).
> >>
> >> Well, if we were to do this for mlx5 we'd want to pass UCX and maybe
> >> other stuff, it seems like it gets quickly out of hand.
> > 
> > Agree, that's why I think this should be limited to things in rdma-core's reach,
> > sounds like a reasonable limit to me.
> > 
> >> I think telemetry is better done as some telemetry subsystem, not
> >> integrated all over the place
> > 
> > Interesting, but that would still be all over the place as each package would
> > have to report its version to that telemetry driver.
> > 
> > And since this currently doesn't exist, should we stay without a solution?
> > Specifically talking about rdma-core version, do you think it could be merged?
> > 
> 
> Jason?

I'm not keen on it, it doesn't work well for other use-cases, it seems
too hacky.

Jason