From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6436701087256079958=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Harris, James R <james.r.harris at intel.com>
Subject: Re: [SPDK] SPDK support for NVMe CMBs and PMRs with WDS/RDS
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 05:07:48 +0000
Message-ID: <D3BBC909-0FB9-430A-BE01-C32324F8C84C@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: FF7FC980937D6342B9D289F5F3C7C2625B60E801@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com
List-ID: <spdk@lists.01.org>
To: spdk@lists.01.org

--===============6436701087256079958==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hey Stephen,

Sorry for the unrelated test failure =E2=80=93 as expected it passed the se=
cond time.

Overall the patch series looks good =E2=80=93 I just reviewed the whole pat=
ch series and added some comments.  Appreciate you taking the time to add t=
he cmb_copy example app!

Thanks,

-Jim


On 2/7/18, 8:05 PM, "SPDK on behalf of Liu, Changpeng" <spdk-bounces(a)list=
s.01.org on behalf of changpeng.liu(a)intel.com> wrote:

    Hi Stephen,
    =

    I removed the -1 label, will start a new round test soon.
    =

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: SPDK [mailto:spdk-bounces(a)lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Stephen =
Bates
    > Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:35 AM
    > To: Storage Performance Development Kit <spdk(a)lists.01.org>
    > Subject: Re: [SPDK] SPDK support for NVMe CMBs and PMRs with WDS/RDS
    > =

    > > My v2 for the NVMe CMB WDS/RDS enablement is now up for review.
    > =

    > So I see my v2 series got pulled into the CI system. It *looks* like =
an unrelated
    > change is causing one test system to fail. I don't think my changes a=
re causing
    > this failure but I'd appreciate it if someone with more experience co=
uld check
    > that.
    > =

    > https://ci.spdk.io/spdk/builds/review/d70dda617b40d8c099eef8313f5b959=
c0153
    > 0d3e.1518046779/fedora-08/
    > =

    > This is the 3rd patch in the 5 patch series. I see patches 4 and 5 ar=
e getting clean
    > bills of health for the same tests. Does the CI tool apply each patch=
 in turn and
    > then run its tests (I assume it must as patches 4 and 5 depend on the=
 prior
    > patches).
    > =

    > Cheers
    > =

    > Stephen
    > =

    > =

    > =

    > _______________________________________________
    > SPDK mailing list
    > SPDK(a)lists.01.org
    > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk
    _______________________________________________
    SPDK mailing list
    SPDK(a)lists.01.org
    https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk
    =



--===============6436701087256079958==--