[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220111204826.GK6467@ziepe.ca>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 16:48:26 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: "lizhijian@...itsu.com" <lizhijian@...itsu.com>
Cc: "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"zyjzyj2000@...il.com" <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>,
"aharonl@...dia.com" <aharonl@...dia.com>,
"leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mbloch@...dia.com" <mbloch@...dia.com>,
"liangwenpeng@...wei.com" <liangwenpeng@...wei.com>,
"yangx.jy@...itsu.com" <yangx.jy@...itsu.com>,
"rpearsonhpe@...il.com" <rpearsonhpe@...il.com>,
"y-goto@...itsu.com" <y-goto@...itsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH rdma-next 08/10] RDMA/rxe: Implement flush execution
in responder side
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 05:34:36AM +0000, lizhijian@...itsu.com wrote:
> Yes, that's true. that's because only pmem has ability to persist data.
> So do you mean we don't need to prevent user to create/register a persistent
> access flag to a non-pmem MR? it would be a bit confusing if so.
Since these extensions seem to have a mode that is unrelated to
persistent memory, I'm not sure it makes sense to link the two things.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists