On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 07:10:53PM +0300, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 8/23/2016 4:49 AM, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > >> Hi Dave and Doug, > >> > >> This series contains several low level and API updates for mlx5 core > >> commands interface and mlx5_ifc.h to be shared as base code for net-next and > >> rdma mlx5 4.9 submissions. > >> > >> From Saeed, ten patches that refactors old layouts of firmware commands which > >> were manually generated before we introduced the mlx5_ifc, now all of the firmware > >> commands inbox/outbox layouts moved to use mlx5_ifc and we remove the old > >> manually generated structures. > > > > These all looked fine to me. > > > >> Plus to those ten patches, we add two patches > >> that unifies mlx5 commands execution interface and improve the driver log messages > >> in that area. > > > > These are the patches that made my eyes want to bleed. But, since it's > > all changes to the mailbox commands being sent to your device, they are > > easy to verify operationally, so I only gave these a cursory review and > > expect if any of your commands broke because of this you'll be > > submitting fixes ASAP. > > > > Thanks Doug for your review those patches already passed all kinds of > our internal regression testings. > What is nice about those patches is that they remove ~1K LOC from > driver and unify the command interface. Thanks for taking them. One of the reasons for such a long delay of shared code submission was our desire to take extra care and test these patches again and again. > > > > >> From Hadar and Ilya, added the needed hardware bits and infrastructure for > >> minimum inline headers setting and encap/decap commands and capabilities, > >> needed for E-Switch offloads. > > > > These looked fine to me, but aren't really in the RDMA area anyway. Our internal goal is to have 0-merge conflicts between RDMA and net trees.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
