Hi Doug, Leon has finished review as well in [7]. Christoph Acked too in [8]. Can you please advise whether (1) I should rebase and resend PatchV12? (2) If so for which branch - master/4.9 or? Tejun and Christoph mentioned that it might be late for 4.9. Can we atleast merge to linux-rdma tree, so that more features/changes can be done on top of it? How can we avoid merge conflict to Linus since this patchset is applicable to two git trees. (cgroup and linux-rdma). I was thinking to push through linux-rdma as it is currently going through more changes, so resolving merge conflict would be simpler if that happens. Please provide the direction. [7] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/5/134 [8] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/5/30 Regards, Parav Pandit On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Doug, > > I am still waiting for Leon to provide his comments if any on rdma cgroup. > From other email context, he was on vacation last week. > While we wait for his comments, I wanted to know your view of this > patchset in 4.9 merge window. > > To summarize the discussion that happened in two threads. > > [1] Ack by Tejun, asking for review from rdma list > [2] quick review by Christoph on patch-v11 (patch 12 has only typo corrections) > [3] Christoph's ack on architecture of rdma cgroup and fitting it with ABI > [4] My response on Matan's query on RSS indirection table > [5] Response from Intel on their driver support for Matan's query > [6] Christoph's point on architecture, which we are following in new > ABI and current ABI > > I have reviewed recent patch [7] from Matan where I see IB verbs > objects are still handled through common path as suggested by > Christoph. > > I do not see any issues with rdma cgroup patchset other than it requires rebase. > Am I missing something? > Can you please help me - What would be required to merge it to 4.9? > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/31/494 > [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/25/146 > [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/10/175 > [4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/14/221 > [5] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/19/571 > [6] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg40337.html > [7] email subject: [RFC ABI V4 0/7] SG-based RDMA ABI Proposal > > Regards, > Parav Pandit > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Tejun, >> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:56 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hello, Parav. >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:13:38AM +0530, Parav Pandit wrote: >>>> We have completed review from Tejun, Christoph. >>>> HFI driver folks also provided feedback for Intel drivers. >>>> Matan's also doesn't have any more comments. >>>> >>>> If possible, if you can also review, it will be helpful. >>>> >>>> I have some more changes unrelated to cgroup in same files in both the git tree. >>>> Pushing them now either results into merge conflict later on for >>>> Doug/Tejun, or requires rebase and resending patch. >>>> If you can review, we can avoid such rework. >>> >>> My impression of the thread was that there doesn't seem to be enough >>> of consensus around how rdma resources should be defined. Is that >>> part agreed upon now? >>> >> >> We ended up discussing few points on different thread [1]. >> >> There was confusion on how some non-rdma/non-IB drivers would work >> with rdma cgroup from Matan. >> Christoph explained how they don't fit in the rdma subsystem and >> therefore its not prime target to addess. >> Intel driver maintainer Denny also acknowledged same on [2]. >> IB compliant drivers of Intel support rdma cgroup as explained in [2]. >> With that usnic and Intel psm drivers falls out of rdma cgroup support >> as they don't fit very well in the verbs definition. >> >> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg40340.html >> [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg40717.html >> >> I will wait for Leon's review comments if he has different view on architecture. >> Back in April when I met face-to-face to Leon and Haggai, Leon was in >> support to have kernel defined the rdma resources as suggested by >> Christoph and Tejun instead of IB/RDMA subsystem. >> I will wait for his comments if his views have changed with new uAPI >> taking shape. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
