Re: linux rdma 3.14 merge plans

Nicholas A. Bellinger
2014-01-16T22:06:08Z

On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 23:42 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> 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:

<SNIP>

> >> > 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.
>

So as Greg noted, it's still useful to get this into the 0-day build
testing now.

That said, pushing the -v4 series into target-pending/rdma-dif, and
Fengguang's scripts should be picking it up shortly.

--nab