On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 01:17:37PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 02:00:36PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:55:03AM +0200, Danil Kipnis wrote: > > > Hallo Doug, Hallo Jason, Hallo Jens, Hallo Greg, > > > > > > Could you please provide some feedback to the IBNBD driver and the > > > IBTRS library? > > > So far we addressed all the requests provided by the community and > > > continue to maintain our code up-to-date with the upstream kernel > > > while having an extra compatibility layer for older kernels in our > > > out-of-tree repository. > > > I understand that SRP and NVMEoF which are in the kernel already do > > > provide equivalent functionality for the majority of the use cases. > > > IBNBD on the other hand is showing higher performance and more > > > importantly includes the IBTRS - a general purpose library to > > > establish connections and transport BIO-like read/write sg-lists over > > > RDMA, while SRP is targeting SCSI and NVMEoF is addressing NVME. While > > > I believe IBNBD does meet the kernel coding standards, it doesn't have > > > a lot of users, while SRP and NVMEoF are widely accepted. Do you think > > > it would make sense for us to rework our patchset and try pushing it > > > for staging tree first, so that we can proof IBNBD is well maintained, > > > beneficial for the eco-system, find a proper location for it within > > > block/rdma subsystems? This would make it easier for people to try it > > > out and would also be a huge step for us in terms of maintenance > > > effort. > > > The names IBNBD and IBTRS are in fact misleading. IBTRS sits on top of > > > RDMA and is not bound to IB (We will evaluate IBTRS with ROCE in the > > > near future). Do you think it would make sense to rename the driver to > > > RNBD/RTRS? > > > > It is better to avoid "staging" tree, because it will lack attention of > > relevant people and your efforts will be lost once you will try to move > > out of staging. We are all remembering Lustre and don't want to see it > > again. > > That's up to the developers, that had nothing to do with the fact that > the code was in the staging tree. If the Lustre developers had actually > done the requested work, it would have moved out of the staging tree. > > So if these developers are willing to do the work to get something out > of staging, and into the "real" part of the kernel, I will gladly take > it. Greg, It is not matter of how much *real* work developers will do, but it is a matter of guidance to do *right* thing, which is hard to achieve if people mentioned in the beginning of this thread wouldn't look on staging code. > > But I will note that it is almost always easier to just do the work > ahead of time, and merge it in "correctly" than to go from staging into > the real part of the kernel. But it's up to the developers what they > want to do. > > thanks, > > greg k-h
