Re: linux rdma 3.14 merge plans

Sagi Grimberg
2014-01-08T08:52:47Z

On 1/8/2014 2:51 AM, Roland Dreier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> Currently there is single patch for 3.14 on your for-next branch, the
>> usnic driver. With 3.13 being on rc7 and likely to be released next
>> week, are you planning any other merges for 3.14? we have patches
>> waiting for weeks and months without any comment from you.
> I am definitely planning on merging the new IBoE IP addressing stuff,
> since we seem to have solved the ABI issues.
>
> The UD flow steering patches seem good and I will take a closer look soon.
>
> And there are quite a few usnic patches still to pick up.
>
> I'm confident that will all make it.
>
>
> The data integrity stuff I'm not so sure about. Sean raised some I
> think legitimate questions about whether all this should be added to
> the verbs API and I want to see more discussion or at least have a
> deep think about this myself before comitting.

Hey Roland,

I don't think that Sean didn't question weather data-integrity support
should or shouldn't be added to Verbs API (Sean correct me if I'm
wrong), but rather the way it should be added.
From our discussion on this, the only conflict that Sean and I had was
weather the protection setup should "ride" on ib_post_send.
Sean suggested a separate routine that would post on the SQ. I think
that in the current framework where
placing a fast-path operation is done via ib_post_send, we keep current
implementation, and open a discussion
if it is a good idea to migrate "non-send" work-requests out of
ib_post_send (also fast-registration and memory-windows).

Sagi.