On 09/30/2010 07:16 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2010, at 1:46 AM, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > >>>> Shall I commit this to my for-2.6.37 tree? Objections? >>> >>> I think it looks OK. >>> >>> But I was wondering if there were any other changes needed for the RDMA >>> transport capability, or had we decided that would happen at a latter point, >>> or that changes are entirely unneeded >> >> We definitely need more changes in the RDMA transport, but I would like to >> have it done later (unless someone other than me starts doing it earlier ;) ). > > OK, thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense to keep the scope of this socket > patch set narrow, but I don't want the RDMA pieces to get lost. The more we let > the RDMA and socket transport capabilities differ, the harder it will be to support > RDMA in the long run. OK, but I may have problems with the IB hardware. If you can advise me the way to test the RDMA without it, it would be very helpful. > Anyway, Bruce, I have no objection to the latest version of this socket patch set, fwiw. > >>> (are namespaces already supported in the IB stack)? >> >> Nope. And this makes RDMA netnsization even more harder :( > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
