From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92933C9DCE3 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 02:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709BE2072C for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 02:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728771AbgJMCdv (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:33:51 -0400 Received: from p3plsmtpa06-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([173.201.192.104]:35878 "EHLO p3plsmtpa06-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728770AbgJMCdv (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:33:51 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 438 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:33:51 EDT Received: from [192.168.0.116] ([71.184.94.153]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id SA1IkixW0InvDSA1Jk7HQF; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 19:26:33 -0700 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=LpLsNUVc c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=vbvdVb1zh1xTTaY8rfQfKQ==:117 a=vbvdVb1zh1xTTaY8rfQfKQ==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=gsHt2oX1I18S2ETG6AkA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=F5Kl5K0nGyUA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: tom@talpey.com Subject: Re: Question about supporting RDMA Extensions for PMEM To: "Li, Hao" , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org References: <8b3c3c81-c0fd-adb2-52a9-94c73aac7e37@cn.fujitsu.com> From: Tom Talpey Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:26:32 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8b3c3c81-c0fd-adb2-52a9-94c73aac7e37@cn.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfIYBNiFtRkyj0QsZcXgbb7EnD0ADbXMB/qqKLz5MVnQMFCgEwsjHQRieA6oi4NtFgogrhhtMCYHwBTz6ZIyy5WgBY5xRS+az2KgoF6wof6UwlwkQbLFn URf+be+Md7MYQltUwhJjuVbCPEcNijq7wVTXwWqBFYu6F8spHWWhu1+b3s0BZSeAJmpS6fif1ZeTUC61nlYqj4Z0UO/EPKJ5Jj03jFCdjZXyZMFtb6SNOjpD Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 10/12/2020 4:13 AM, Li, Hao wrote: > Hi, > > I have noticed that IETF has released a draft of RDMA Extensions for > PMEM [1]. Does libibverbs has a plan to implement these extensions? Are > there some good starting points if we want to participate the development. > Thanks! > > [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-talpey-rdma-commit-01.html The draft you refer to is an individual draft, not an official IETF release. However, after a lengthy process, the effort is now an official work item of the NFSv4 working group, since the original STORM WG was shut down an alternative process had to be determined. An updated document is in the works, hopefully in October, and may become a full RFC as the IETF process advances. My coauthors and I look forward to this. In the meantime, the IBTA LWG took up a similar task, and we completed it several months ago. I am not sure when it might be released as an official Annex, but I assume that is in the works as well. The IBTA version of the extensions is semantically similar, but does not include the "Verify" operation which in the iWARP document. Perhaps this will be added later. In theory, the IBTA SWG is in control of specifying any Verbs changes. The Annex does discuss these, but SWG would still need to ratify. If Fujitsu is an IBTA member, I'd encourage you to support this. IETF, of course, has no dependency on IBTA, or Verbs, so participating there is a separate matter. I encourage that participation, too! Tom.