From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rdma_cm: Add support for a new RDMA_PS_LUSTRE Lustre port space Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:25:31 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20100113154952.0f01aa1d@frecb007965> <20100113155150.59867f40@frecb007965> <7ED07283D76C422C9210FBE7C832731B@amr.corp.intel.com> <20100114135815.69d5a9a5@frecb007965> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100114135815.69d5a9a5@frecb007965> (sebastien dugue's message of "Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:58:15 +0100") Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: sebastien dugue Cc: Sean Hefty , linux-rdma , Roland Dreier , Sasha Khapyorsky List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > > I agree. If setting QoS requires a kernel patch for each application, I > > think we've messed up QoS somehow. There needs to be a way to control > > QoS via configuration, rather than rebuilding. > > Right, it's possible via configuration only, but you then cannot separate > the different Lustre traffics (MDS and OSS for example). I guess I don't know enough about Lustre to know why this would be so. How does creating a new port space for Lustre help with this? Why can't one do the same thing in one of the existing port spaces? - R. -- 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