-----"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: -----
>To: "Bernard Metzler" <BMT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>From: "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
>Date: 05/16/2019 05:47PM
>Cc: "Leon Romanovsky" <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Doug Ledford"
><dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-rdma" <linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: iWARP and soft-iWARP interop testing
>
>On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 03:39:10PM +0000, Bernard Metzler 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.
>
>? Really? I iwarp doesn't use a protection domain?
Aehm no, siw does not need any siw specific additions to the ib_pd.
So there is no need to define any extra siw_pd besides of ib_pd.
Except for the INIT_RDMA_OBJ_SIZE thing.
siw can just use struct ib_pd. It has all it needs...
>
>> 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?
>
>Rebase it when rc1 comes out and resend as not an RFC
>
>Jason
>
>
