linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the rdma tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:37:26 +0300
From:   Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yamin Friedman <yaminf@...lanox.com>,
        Israel Rukshin <israelr@...lanox.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the rdma tree


On 6/2/2020 5:56 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,

Hi,

This looks good to me.

Can you share a pointer to the tree so we'll test it in our labs ?

need to re-test:

1. srq per core

2. srq per core + T10-PI

And both will run with shared CQ.


>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>
>    drivers/nvme/target/rdma.c
>
> between commit:
>
>    5733111dcd97 ("nvmet-rdma: use new shared CQ mechanism")
>
> from the rdma tree and commits:
>
>    b0012dd39715 ("nvmet-rdma: use SRQ per completion vector")
>    b09160c3996c ("nvmet-rdma: add metadata/T10-PI support")
>
> from the block tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>