Hi,
Is FMR (Fast Memory Regions) supported in a multi-function mode?
If yes, I couldn't find the source code for the same in the mlx4
codebase. Can anyone please point me to the right location...
What I was trying to understand is this:
Suppose a VF driver wants to register large amount of
Hey Chuck,
On 11/08/2014 08:14 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
The Linux NFS/RDMA server used to reject NFSv3 WRITE requests when
pad optimization was enabled. That bug was fixed by commit
e560e3b510d2 (svcrdma: Add zero padding if the client doesn't send
it).
Do we need to worry about backwards
Hi,
I was going through the mlx4 code and previous mailing lists when I
came across the following thread:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-rdmam=134398354428293w=2
In that thread, it is mentioned as follows:
Some Limitations
1. FMRs are not currently supported on slaves. This will
On Nov 10, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Anna Schumaker anna.schuma...@netapp.com wrote:
Hey Chuck,
On 11/08/2014 08:14 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
The Linux NFS/RDMA server used to reject NFSv3 WRITE requests when
pad optimization was enabled. That bug was fixed by commit
e560e3b510d2 (svcrdma: Add
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 08:54:27AM -0600, Chuck Lever wrote:
On Nov 10, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Anna Schumaker anna.schuma...@netapp.com wrote:
Hey Chuck,
On 11/08/2014 08:14 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
The Linux NFS/RDMA server used to reject NFSv3 WRITE requests when
pad optimization was
Hi Chuck,
It looks like this patch and the next one are general client changes, so they
might have to be submitted to Trond directly rather than going through my tree.
Trond, what do you think?
Anna
On 11/08/2014 08:15 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
Use the correct calculation of the maximum size
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Anna Schumaker
anna.schuma...@netapp.com wrote:
Hi Chuck,
It looks like this patch and the next one are general client changes, so they
might have to be submitted to Trond directly rather than going through my
tree. Trond, what do you think?
Ditto for the
From: Hariprasad Shenai haripra...@chelsio.com
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 09:35:22 +0530
This series moves the debugfs code to a new file debugfs.c and cleans up
macros/register defines.
Various patches have ended up changing the style of the symbolic
macros/register
defines and some of them
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:28:27AM +, Weiny, Ira wrote:
Sadly, I think the proper way to address this is the same way netdev
addresses it - do not activate the interface on module load, wait
for an explicit enablement so userspace can configure before it tries to
link
up.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 06:32:18PM +, Weiny, Ira wrote:
I don't know if this is practical, but it is the only race free way to
properly
address all of this.
I don't think it is practical at all.
Assuming that we can hold the link from transitioning to Init how
PortInfo writes
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 20:05:54 +0530
Bob Biloxi iambobbil...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I was going through the mlx4 code and previous mailing lists when I
came across the following thread:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-rdmam=134398354428293w=2
In that thread, it is mentioned as follows:
On 11/10/2014 4:28 PM, Bob Biloxi wrote:
Suppose a VF driver wants to register large amount of memory using
FMR, will it be able to do so using the mlx4 code.
no, the proprietary FMRs are not supported for mlx4 VFs, nor for mlx5
both PF/VFs
Or FMR is supported only in dedicated mode?
Hi, RoCE support in SRIOV was added in upstream kernel 3.14 :
Hi,
Thank you so much for pointing out when the support was added and also
the commit details.
This is really very helpful!!
I will go through these to further increase my understanding. Thanks so much...
Best Regards,
Bob
On
Hi,
no, the proprietary FMRs are not supported for mlx4 VFs, nor for mlx5 both
PF/VFs
use the fast reg API, see for example this commit 5587856 IB/iser:
Introduce fast memory registration model (FRWR) how this is done. The API
was introduced in commit 00f7ec3 RDMA/core: Add memory
14 matches
Mail list logo
