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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:56:29 +0300
From:   Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        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 6/3/2020 2:32 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 01:40:51AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>> On 6/3/2020 12:37 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 6/2/20 1:09 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>> 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..
>> Yes, I'll send it in 2 weeks.
>>
>> Actually I hoped the iSER patches for CQ pool will be sent in this series
>> but eventually they were not.
>>
>> This way we could have taken only the iser part and the new API.
>>
>> I saw the pulled version too late since I wasn't CCed to it and it was
>> already merged before I had a chance to warn you about possible conflict.
>>
>> I think in general we should try to add new RDMA APIs first with iSER/SRP
>> and avoid conflicting trees.
> If you are careful we can construct a shared branch and if Jens/etc is
> willing he can pull the RDMA base code after RDMA merges the branch
> and then apply the nvme parts. This is how things work with netdev
>
> It is tricky and you have to plan for it during your submission step,
> but we should be able to manage in most cases if this comes up more
> often.

I think we can construct a branch like this for dedicated series and 
delete it after the acceptance.

In case of new APIs for RDMA that involve touching NVMe stuff - we'll 
create this branch and ask Jens to pull it as you suggested.

And as a general note,  I suggest we won't merge NVMe/RDMA stuff to 
rdma-next without cooperation with Jens.

-Max.

>
> Jason