Tue, Jan 24, 2023 12:43 PM Zhu Yanjun wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 3:36 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 11:25:35AM -0600, Bob Pearson wrote: > > > This patch series replaces the page map carried in each memory region > > > with a struct xarray. It is based on a sketch developed by Jason > > > Gunthorpe. The first five patches are preparation that tries to > > > cleanly isolate all the mr specific code into rxe_mr.c. The sixth > > > patch is the actual change. > > > > I think this is fine, are all the other people satisfied? > > I noticed that RXE is disabled in RHEL9.x. And in RHEL 8.x, RXE still > is enabled. > It seems that RXE is disabled in RHEL 9.x because of instability. > And recently RXE accepted several patch series. > IMO, we should have more time to make tests and fix bugs before the > new patch series are accepted. I am relatively a newcomer here, but I think what Zhu says is true. While there are some pending patch series, there comes a new large patch series that is hard to review, and they get merged without being tested and inspected enough resulting in new bugs. I suppose that is what have been happening here. > > This can make RXE more stable. And more linux distributions will enable it. > Or else, more and more linux distributions will disable RXE. Less and > less users will use RXE. > Finally RXE will never be used in the future. > > I think, this is not what the RXE guys expect. > > As such, it had better have more time to make tests and let RXE more stable. > We should not accept too many patch series in short time. Too many > patch series will bring risks. Blocking new patch series totally will make the rxe less attractive to the contributors. I propose that each of us should have at most one pending patch series at once that consists of more than 4 patches or so. That will make the situation a lot clearer and make it easier for us to review patches each other. Daisuke > > Zhu Yanjun > > > > > > Thanks, > > Jason
