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]

Message-ID: <20200602190945.GC65026@mellanox.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jun 2020 16:09:45 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        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 Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:02:55PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/2/20 1:01 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:37:26AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> > 
> > Max, this is too much conflict to send to Linus between your own
> > patches. I am going to drop the nvme part of this from RDMA.
> > 
> > Normally I don't like applying partial series, but due to this tree
> > split, you can send the rebased nvme part through the nvme/block tree
> > at rc1 in two weeks..
> 
> Was going to comment that this is probably how it should have been
> done to begin with. If we have multiple conflicts like that between
> two trees, someone is doing something wrong...

Well, on the other hand having people add APIs in one tree and then
(promised) consumers in another tree later on has proven problematic
in the past. It is best to try to avoid that, but in this case I don't
think Max will have any delay to get the API consumer into nvme in two
weeks.

Jason