On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 03:57:15PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > On 11/18/2017 2:52 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 09:32:42PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 11/16/2017 8:36 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > Since there is an active discussion regarding the CQ pool > > > > > architecture, I decided to push > > > > > this feature (maybe it can be pushed before CQ pool). > > > > > > > > > > This is a new feature for NVMEoF RDMA target, > > > > > > > > Any chance having this for the rest? isert, srpt, svcrdma? > > > > > > > > > > We can implement it for isert, but I think it's better to see how the CQ > > > pool will be defined first. > > > It can bring a big benefit and improvement for ib_srpt (similar to NVMEoF > > > target) but I'm not sure if I can commit for that one soon.. > > > > Too bad, but I don't see inclusion of generic SRQ pool code in RDMA > > subsystem without actual conversion of existing ULP clients. > > > > Thanks > > > > This patchset adds this feature to NVMEoF target so actually there are ULPs > that use it. Same issue we have with mr_pool that only RDMA rw.c use it (Now > we're adding it to NVMEoF initiators too - in review). The difference between your code and mr_pool is that mr_pool is part of RDMA/core and in use by RDMA/core (rw.c), which in use by all ULPs. However if you insist, we can remove EXPORT_SYMBOL from mr_pool implementation, because of being part of RDMA/core and it blows symbols map without need. Should I? In your case, you are proposing generic interface, which supposed to be good fit for all ULPs but without those ULPs. > I can add srq_pool to iSER target code but I don't want to re-write it again > in few weeks, when the CQ pool will be added. So, please finalize interface in RFC stage and once you are ready, proceed to the actual patches. > Regarding other ULPs, we don't have a testing environment for them so I > prefer not to commit on their implementation in the near future. You are not expected to have all testing environment, it is their (ULPs maintainers) responsibility to test your conversion, because you are doing conversion to generic interface. > > I don't know why we can't add this feature "as is". > Other ULPs maintainers might use it once it will be pushed. Sorry, but it is not how kernel development process works. "You propose -> you do" and not "You propose -> they do". Thanks > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
