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
