Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v5 00/11] net/smc: SMC intra-OS shortcut with loopback-ism

[Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com>]

On 2024/4/11 17:32, Wenjia Zhang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11.04.24 09:45, Wen Gu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024/4/3 19:10, Gerd Bayer wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 14:35 +0800, Wen Gu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2024/3/24 21:55, Wen Gu wrote:
>>>>> This patch set acts as the second part of the new version of [1]
>>>>> (The first
>>>>> part can be referred from [2]), the updated things of this version
>>>>> are listed
>>>>> at the end.
>>>>
>>>>> Change log:
>>>>>
>>>>> RFC v5->RFC v4:
>>>>> - Patch #2: minor changes in description of config SMC_LO and
>>>>> comments.
>>>>> - Patch #10: minor changes in comments and
>>>>> if(smc_ism_support_dmb_nocopy())
>>>>>     check in smcd_cdc_msg_send().
>>>>> - Patch #3: change smc_lo_generate_id() to smc_lo_generate_ids()
>>>>> and SMC_LO_CHID
>>>>>     to SMC_LO_RESERVED_CHID.
>>>>> - Patch #5: memcpy while holding the ldev->dmb_ht_lock.
>>>>> - Some expression changes in commit logs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Jan. Do you have any comments on this version and should I post a
>>>> new patch series without 'RFC'? Thank you.
>>>
>>> Hi Wen,
>>>
>>> Jan has been out sick for a little while now, and Wenjia is expected
>>> back from a longer vacation tomorrow. So if you could hold off until
>>> begin of next week, Wenjia might have some more feedback.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, I'm looking at your patchset...
>>>
>>> Thank you, Gerd
>>>
>>
>> Hi Gerd, is there any further information? I am wondering if I
>> should wait for more feedback from SMC maintainers. Thanks!
>>
>>
>> Hi Wenjia, when it's convenient for you, could you please confirm
>> if [1] and [2] need to be included in the next version? Thanks!
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/7291dd1b2d16fd9bbd90988ac5bcc3a46d17e3f4.camel@linux.ibm.com/
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/60b4aec0b4bf4474d651b653c86c280dafc4518a.camel@linux.ibm.com/
>>
> 
> Hi Wen,
> 
> I'm just back, thank you for the patience!
> 
> Firstly I want to thank Gerd and Niklas for review and bringing up these points!
> 
> Here are some of my options on that:
> 
> To [1]:
> I agree to document the ops as otional if it must not be supported. Since I don't really have any ideas, the 
> classification souds reasonable to me. Going to the details, what about to take following options as mandatory:
> 
> * query_remote_gid()
> * register_dmb()/unregister_dmb()
> * move_data() : I do see the necessary here.
> * get_local_gid()
> * get_chid()
> * get_dev()
> 
> To [2]:
> I also agree to keep the ism-loopback at the very beginning of the List. That acting is also what I imaged previously. 
> Thank you, gerd, again for testing it and find it out!
> 
> Thanks,
> Wenjia

Hi Wenjia, welcome back! :)

OK, then I will take these in my next version. Thank you all!