[Drop Mitko's dead email address]
On 1/30/2019 4:19 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:54:04PM -0500, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
On 1/30/2019 12:21 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 21:48 -0800, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
Here is the final set of patches for TID RDMA. Again this is code which was
previously submitted but re-organized so as to be easier to review.
Similar to how the READ series was organized the patches to build, receive,
allocate resources etc are broken out. For details on TID RDMA as a whole
again refer to the original cover letter.
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg66611.html
Help me out here Denny. This appears to be a *monster* submission. Are
you saying we need all of these patch series to make this work:
Subject: [PATCH for-next 00/17] IB/hfi1: Add TID RDMA Read
Subject: [PATCH for-next 0/6] IB/hfi1: Add OPFN
Subject: [PATCH for-next 00/23] IB/hfi1: Add TID RDMA Write
So a total of 46 patches to add this support? And do the series need to
be in that order?
Yes it is certainly a monster series. Same code in the end as we submitted
before, Kaike just did a big re-org job on it all so it flows better for
review.
The point of the re-org was to get into the standard accepted flow of
~14 patches sent and applicable on their own, not to just re-organize
the 50 patches into a different set of 50 patches.
The code was all re-organized specifically for the "flow". Yeah it's a
large number of patches but it's logically all arranged and not a set of
50 hodge-podge patches. Logically these do stand on their own. We have
the negotiation, we have the read, then we have the right. I don't see
how breaking things up even more is going to help much. Open to
suggestions though.
Just taking a quick look through my mail box I see more than a couple
series that are larger than 14. Including a 30 patch series that didn't
seem to generate any complaints.
-Denny
