Re: linux rdma 3.14 merge plans

Or Gerlitz
2014-01-16T21:42:19Z

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:14:12PM -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 12:13 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 12:32 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
>> > > > Hi Roland & Co,
>> > > > Just curious if your planning to take a look at this series soon for
>> > > > v3.14 code..?
>> > > >
>> > > > As you might imagine, I'd like to see it merged this round in order to
>> > > > move forward on iser-target protection for v3.15.
>> > > >
>> > > > Are there any specific issues that you'd like to see addressed for an
>> > > > initial merge..?
>> >
>> > I haven't really had a chance to look at the new API and decide if it
>> > makes sense as the way to expose these features. Have you looked at
>> > the new kernel API? Any thoughts?
>>
>> I've reviewed the API from the perspective of what's required for
>> implementing protection support in iser, and currently don't have any
>> recommendations or objections beyond what has been proposed by Sagi & Co
>> in PATCH-v4 code.
>>
>> > How does it compare with how other subsystems have exposed protection
>> > info?
>> >
>>
>> So there is not a interface in SCSI land for interacting (directly) with
>> hardware protection support, as it's primarily just telling SCSI what
>> protection modes are supported while the rest is implemented in vendor
>> specific firmware interfaces. (CC'ing MKP)
>>
>> > Right now I'm dealing with fixing the fallout from picking up the "IP
>> > addressing for IBoE" and other patch sets that were supposedly "ready
>> > to merge for a long time" so I'm not sure I'll get to the protection
>> > changes in time for 3.14.
>> >
>>
>> Pretty please for v3.14..?
>
> It's _really_ late in the development cycle for new stuff for 3.14. My
> trees have been closed for almost a week now, for major stuff, and for
> anything else for a few days now. It would be good if you could get
> your patchsets into the 0-day testing bot earlier to shake out any build
> issues that might happen with them, please work with that developer to
> help make the merging of the code easier.

Greg,

The T10 patches were posted whole three months ago (V0 Oct 15th). I
don't see why another cycle should get lost just because there was no
maintainer feedback on them throughout this whole period. There's
enough time for us to fix things that will show up in the testing bot
before Roland sends his pull request over the two weeks merge window.

Or.