From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758660AbYDBQTb (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:19:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758227AbYDBQTU (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:19:20 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70]:57497 "EHLO sj-iport-1.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758206AbYDBQTS (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:19:18 -0400 From: Roland Dreier To: tziporet@dev.mellanox.co.il Cc: general@lists.openfabrics.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ofa-general] InfiniBand/iWARP/RDMA merge plans for 2.6.26 (what's in infiniband.git) References: <47F37CA4.8000109@mellanox.co.il> X-Message-Flag: Warning: May contain useful information Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:19:17 -0700 In-Reply-To: <47F37CA4.8000109@mellanox.co.il> (Tziporet Koren's message of "Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:31:32 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2008 16:19:18.0055 (UTC) FILETIME=[4CFF6B70:01C894DD] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=rdreier@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > We want to add send with invalidate & mask compare and swap. > Eli will be able to send the patches next week and since they are > small I think they can be in for 2.6.26 Send with invalidate should be OK. Let's see about the masked atomics stuff -- we have a ton of new verbs and I think we might want to slow down and make sure it all makes sense. > What about the split CQ for UD mode? It's improved the IPoIB > performance for small messages significantly. Oh yeah... I'll try to get that in too. > mlx4- we plan to send patches for the low level driver only to enable > mlx4_en. These only affect our low level driver. No problem in principle, let's see the actual patches. > I think we should try to push for XEC in 2.6.26 since there are > already MPI implementation that use it and this ties them to use OFED > only. > Also this feature is stable and now being defined in IBTA > Not taking it causing changes between OFED and the kernel and your > libibverbs and we wish to avoid such gaps. > Is there any thing we can do to help and make it into 2.6.26? I don't have a good feeling that the user-kernel interface is well thought out, so I want to consider XRC + ehca LL stuff + new iWARP verbs and make sure we have something that makes sense for the future. - R.