Re: Unexpected issues with 2 NVME initiators using the same target

[Leon Romanovsky <leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1255 bytes --]

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 04:43:18PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> > > > Any update here?  Would love to be able to load up the new kernels without patching them every time. :)
> > >
> > > I would like that too,
> > >
> > > Max, can you send a patch? or should I?
> >
> > Sagi,
> >
> > Max is doing his best to provide a patch, unfortunately he is limited
> > by various architecture implications which he needs to resolve before
> > sending it.
>
> Well, he already sent a patch that fixes the issue.
> He said that he needs additional optimization for CX5 (which I assume
> doesn't need the strong fence), but that still does not change the
> fact that CX4 is broken. I asked to include his patch, fix the
> existing bug and incrementally optimize CX5.
>
> What do you mean by architecture implications? it's broken and there is
> a request from the community to fix it. Are you suggesting that it
> doesn't solve the issue?

I understand you and both Max and me are feeling the same as you. For more
than 2 months, we constantly (almost on daily basis) asked for a solution from
architecture group, but received different answers. The proposals were
extremely broad from need for strong fence for all cards to no need for
strong fence at all.

Thanks

>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]