Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the rdma tree

From: Max Gurtovoy <maxg@mellanox.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Yamin Friedman <yaminf@mellanox.com>,
	Israel Rukshin <israelr@mellanox.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the rdma tree
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 13:56:29 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7d5dd73d-02fe-680d-1b0e-69d0e8af5430@mellanox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200602233201.GE65026@mellanox.com>

On 6/3/2020 2:32 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 01:40:51AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>> On 6/3/2020 12:37 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 6/2/20 1:09 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:02:55PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On 6/2/20 1:01 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:37:26AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/2/2020 5:56 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks good to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you share a pointer to the tree so we'll test it in our labs ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> need to re-test:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. srq per core
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. srq per core + T10-PI
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And both will run with shared CQ.
>>>>>> Max, this is too much conflict to send to Linus between your own
>>>>>> patches. I am going to drop the nvme part of this from RDMA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Normally I don't like applying partial series, but due to this tree
>>>>>> split, you can send the rebased nvme part through the nvme/block tree
>>>>>> at rc1 in two weeks..
>> Yes, I'll send it in 2 weeks.
>>
>> Actually I hoped the iSER patches for CQ pool will be sent in this series
>> but eventually they were not.
>>
>> This way we could have taken only the iser part and the new API.
>>
>> I saw the pulled version too late since I wasn't CCed to it and it was
>> already merged before I had a chance to warn you about possible conflict.
>>
>> I think in general we should try to add new RDMA APIs first with iSER/SRP
>> and avoid conflicting trees.
> If you are careful we can construct a shared branch and if Jens/etc is
> willing he can pull the RDMA base code after RDMA merges the branch
> and then apply the nvme parts. This is how things work with netdev
>
> It is tricky and you have to plan for it during your submission step,
> but we should be able to manage in most cases if this comes up more
> often.

I think we can construct a branch like this for dedicated series and 
delete it after the acceptance.

In case of new APIs for RDMA that involve touching NVMe stuff - we'll 
create this branch and ask Jens to pull it as you suggested.

And as a general note,  I suggest we won't merge NVMe/RDMA stuff to 
rdma-next without cooperation with Jens.

-Max.

>
> Jason