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

[Max Gurtovoy]

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