On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Steve Wise wrote:
> Hey Doug, I don't see this branch. Which branch has the accepted device attr
> change?
k.o/for-4.5 on Doug's kernel.org tree
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.ke
rpe;
> linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org; ira.weiny; Or Gerlitz; Steve Wise; Or Gerlitz;
Sagi
> Grimberg
> Subject: Re: device attr cleanup
>
> On 12/23/2015 04:31 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 07:49:59PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >>
> >&g
On 12/23/2015 04:31 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 07:49:59PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:07:03AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
The ARM folks do this sort of stuff on a regular
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 07:49:59PM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
> > On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:07:03AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> The ARM folks do this sort of stuff on a regular basis.. Very early on
> >> Doug prepares a topic
On 12/22/2015 02:19 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 02:56 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2015 9:03 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
>>
Or, you specifically asked me to wait until this week. I made my
initial impressions clear (I d
On 12/22/2015 02:56 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On 12/15/2015 9:03 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
>>> Or, you specifically asked me to wait until this week. I made my
>>> initial impressions clear (I don't necessarily like the removal of the
>>> attr
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On 12/15/2015 9:03 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> Or, you specifically asked me to wait until this week. I made my
>> initial impressions clear (I don't necessarily like the removal of the
>> attr struct, but I like the removal of all of the query
On 12/16/2015 3:40 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
I really don't have a strong preference on either of the approaches. I
just want to see this included one way or the other.
sure, agree, I will send my patches tomorrow
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the b
Hi Doug,
Lets stop beating, both horses and people.
I do understand that
1. you don't link the removal of the attr
2. you do like the removal of all the query calls
I am proposing to take the path of a patch that
does exactly #2 while avoiding #1.
I really don't have a strong preference o
On 12/15/2015 9:03 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
Or, you specifically asked me to wait until this week. I made my
initial impressions clear (I don't necessarily like the removal of the
attr struct, but I like the removal of all of the query calls, and I'm
inclined to take the patch in spite of not li
On 12/08/2015 06:15 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 12:47:55AM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>
The patch is three liner to add the cached attrs --
http://marc.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>
>> On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:07:03AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> The ARM folks do this sort of stuff on a regular basis.. Very early on
>>> Doug prepares a topic branch with on
On 12/9/2015 10:42 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 07:52:03PM -0500, ira.weiny wrote:
Searching patchworks...
I'm a bit worried about the size of the patch and I would like to see it split
up for review. But I agree Christophs method is better long term.
I'd be happy to
> On Dec 9, 2015, at 8:45 PM, ira.weiny wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:42:35AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 07:52:03PM -0500, ira.weiny wrote:
>>> Searching patchworks...
>>>
>>> I'm a bit worried about the size of the patch and I would like to see it
>>> s
On 12/11/2015 01:14 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:56:50PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
>> Looking at struct netdevice, it has the sort of organization I would
>> call reasonable. Things like struct tx_stats is a struct, even though
>> it's embedded in the parent struct a
+Dave,
On 12/10/15 4:49 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:07:03AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
The ARM folks do this sort of stuff on a regular basis.. Very early on
Doug prepares a topic branch with only the big change,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:56:50PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Looking at struct netdevice, it has the sort of organization I would
> call reasonable. Things like struct tx_stats is a struct, even though
> it's embedded in the parent struct and not a pointer and there is
> exactly and only one c
On 12/10/2015 06:29 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:46:54PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> Organization. Let's be fair, the totally flat namespace you are
>> preferring is the equivalent of a teenager that is completely incapable
>> of picking thier dirty laundry up off th
> On Dec 10, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:07:03AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> The ARM folks do this sort of stuff on a regular basis.. Very early on
>> Doug prepares a topic branch with only the big change, NFS folks pull
>> it and then pull your
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:07:03AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> The ARM folks do this sort of stuff on a regular basis.. Very early on
> Doug prepares a topic branch with only the big change, NFS folks pull
> it and then pull your work. Then Doug would send the topic branch to
> Linus as soon as
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:46:54PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Organization. Let's be fair, the totally flat namespace you are
> preferring is the equivalent of a teenager that is completely incapable
> of picking thier dirty laundry up off the floor. It is sloppy,
> disorganized, often full of
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:07:37AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Invasive IB core changes like this clean up are especially
> burdensome for me because NFS/RDMA changes do not normally
> go through Doug's tree, so it takes extra co-ordination.
The ARM folks do this sort of stuff on a regular basis
On 12/09/2015 01:44 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:13:29AM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>
>> Christoph patch is here indeed, it does two things
>>
>> 1. remove all the ULP device attr alloc, device query, attr free hassle
>> 2. adds tons of new fields to struct ib_device
>>
rnel.org
>> Cc: ira.weiny; Christoph Hellwig; Jason Gunthorpe; Or Gerlitz; Steve Wise;
>> Or Gerlitz; Sagi Grimberg; Doug Ledford
>> Subject: Re: device attr cleanup (was: Handle mlx4 max_sge_rd correctly)
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 10, 2015, at 3:27 AM, Sagi Grimberg
erlitz; Steve Wise; Or
> Gerlitz; Sagi Grimberg; Doug Ledford
> Subject: Re: device attr cleanup (was: Handle mlx4 max_sge_rd correctly)
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 2015, at 3:27 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Doug this is going to conflict with the rd
do not normally
go through Doug's tree, so it takes extra co-ordination.
Here is a modest proposal. An obvious way to split the
device attr cleanup might go like this:
a. first patch: add new fields to ib_device
b. then one patch for each provider to populate these fields
c. then one patch for
Doug this is going to conflict with the rdmavt work. So if you take this could
you respond on the list.
It will also conflict with the iser remote invalidate series.
Doug it would help if you share your plans so people can rebase
accordingly.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:42:35AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 07:52:03PM -0500, ira.weiny wrote:
> > Searching patchworks...
> >
> > I'm a bit worried about the size of the patch and I would like to see it
> > split
> > up for review. But I agree Christophs method
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:13:29AM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>
> Christoph patch is here indeed, it does two things
>
> 1. remove all the ULP device attr alloc, device query, attr free hassle
> 2. adds tons of new fields to struct ib_device
>
> I think it just goes too much and needlessly adds to
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 07:52:03PM -0500, ira.weiny wrote:
> Searching patchworks...
>
> I'm a bit worried about the size of the patch and I would like to see it split
> up for review. But I agree Christophs method is better long term.
I'd be happy to split it up if I could see a way to split it
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 03:02:44PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 03:59:40PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Or, can we please stop this bikeshedding. Christoph's patch is done,
> > well tested and does a lot more clean up that this hacky three liner.
> >
> > It is a g
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 03:02:44PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 03:59:40PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Or, can we please stop this bikeshedding. Christoph's patch is done,
> > well tested and does a lot more clean up that this hacky three liner.
> >
> > It is a g
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 12:47:55AM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>
>>> The patch is three liner to add the cached attrs --
>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-rdma&m=142309296813985&w=2 -- if you
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 12:47:55AM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> The patch is three liner to add the cached attrs --
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-rdma&m=142309296813985&w=2 -- if you are OK
>> with that, I will add a 2nd patch that ports all
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 03:59:40PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Or, can we please stop this bikeshedding. Christoph's patch is done,
> well tested and does a lot more clean up that this hacky three liner.
>
> It is a good patch, and although patchworks doesn't have my remarks
> from an earlier
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 12:47:55AM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > Makes sense.
>
> thanks.
>
> > Show me what you are talking about (either a link to Ira's
> > patch you are referring to or your own patch).
>
> The patch is three liner to add
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:04 AM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Makes sense.
thanks.
> Show me what you are talking about (either a link to Ira's
> patch you are referring to or your own patch).
The patch is three liner to add the cached attrs --
http://marc.info/?l=linux-rdma&m=142309296813985&w=2 -- i
On 12/08/2015 04:00 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
>>
>> On 12/08/2015 01:13 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> I mentioned this in v1. This patch set is applied over Christoph's
>>> device attributes patch. Will it go in as well?
>>
>> No, that's to
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> On 12/08/2015 01:13 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
> > I mentioned this in v1. This patch set is applied over Christoph's
> > device attributes patch. Will it go in as well?
>
> No, that's too big and not the right sort of fix for 4.4-rc. I ha
39 matches
Mail list logo
