-----"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: -----
>To: "Doug Ledford" <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
>From: "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
>Date: 05/07/2019 06:13PM
>Cc: "linux-rdma" <linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Bernard Metzler"
><BMT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: iWARP and soft-iWARP interop testing
>
>On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 04:38:27PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> So, Jason and I were discussing the soft-iWARP driver submission,
>and he
>> thought it would be good to know if it even works with the various
>iWARP
>> hardware devices. I happen to have most of them on hand in one
>form or
>> another, so I set down to test it. In the process, I ran across
>some
>> issues just with the hardware versions themselves, let alone with
>soft-
>> iWARP. So, here's the results of my matrix of tests. These aren't
>> performance tests, just basic "does it work" smoke tests...
>
>Well, lets imagine to merge this at 5.2-rc1?
>
>Bernard you'll need to rebase and resend when it comes out in two
>weeks.
>
>Thanks,
>Jason
>
>
I think I addressed all major issues of the current siw RFC.
Probably most important, it's now guaranteed that the remaining
two objects (QP and MR) are kfree'd after return from the
ib_devices free call. This makes it easier for future development
of mid layers resource management, as Leon was pointing out.
All IDR usage is gone as well.
I removed the siw protection domain, since there is nothing
siw specific to be stored within. I just keep a structure
definition of 'struct siw_pd {struct ib_pd *base_pd}' to
keep INIT_RDMA_OBJ_SIZE() happy.
Please advise what I shall do next to keep it going. Shall
I send another RFC or rebase/resend it to current for-next
now?
Many thanks,
Bernard
