On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 08:38:16PM +0000, Walker, Benjamin wrote: > On Mon, 2018-08-20 at 14:32 -0700, Howell, Seth wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > > I apologize for the few days of radio silence on this one. I was able to apply > > your patch on my local configuration and can confirm that it fixes the issue > > of send with invalidate being improperly mapped between a user-space process > > and the kernel rxe driver. > > > > Thanks again for your time and help. > > > > Seth Howell > > > > From: linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: > > linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Gunthorpe > > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:01 AM > > To: Howell, Seth <seth.howell@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Walker, Benjamin <benjamin.walker@xxxxxxxxx>; Doug Ledford < > > dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > ; Moni Shoua <monis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] rdma: move the ib_wr_opcode enum to include/uapi > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:27:36PM +0000, Howell, Seth wrote: > > > > > Thank you for taking the time to review this issue. The patch you > > > submitted will definitely fix the problem I was facing. > > > > Can you test it to be certain? > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > We've recently run into this same issue on i40iw, which appears to make the same > mistake of using the kernel version of the enum instead of the userspace > version. Confused by this?? i40iw_upost_send does not handle the kernel numbers at all, as far as I can see? How does it develop a kernel dependency?? > What's the current status here? Can it be merged? I just checked and > do not see it merged to Linux master. Oh! This apparently got lost, thanks for bringing it up again. > Running a user-space NVMe-oF target with RDMA and a recent Linux kernel > initiator is not currently possible on rxe or i40iw because it requires send > with invalidate support. Okay, but i40iw doesn't seem to support send with invalidate at all in userspace? i40iw_upost_send() swithces on opcode, doesn't handle SEND_INV and then blows up in the default clause - how does this patch make any difference??? Jason
