On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 07:33:14AM +0200, Knut Omang wrote:

On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 14:09 +0000, Mark Bloch wrote:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ledford [mailto:dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:06 PM
To: leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org; Weiny, Ira <redacted>
Cc: Mark Bloch <markb-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>; Jason Gunthorpe
[off-list ref]; linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org;
hal.rosenstock-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next V2 5/5] IB/core: Integrate IB address
resolution module into core

On 5/23/2016 4:58 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 07:36:03PM +0000, Weiny, Ira wrote:

quoted

quoted

On 05/18/2016 02:28 PM, Mark Bloch wrote:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ledford [mailto:dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 8:59 PM
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Mark Bloch <markb-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>; leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org;
linux-
rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next V2 5/5] IB/core: Integrate
IB address
resolution module into core

On 05/18/2016 01:15 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:51:02AM -0400, Doug Ledford
wrote:

quoted

moves it into the ib_core and also keep the new
ib_netlink stuff in
ib_core.  So, fewer modules, not more.

What about getting rid of ib_sa as well so we can avoid
that dynamic
netlink registration patch too?

That's fine too.

Integrating ib_sa into ib_core also means to do the same
for ib_mad.
If you agree with it (ib_sa & ib_mad becoming part of
ib_core), I'll

create

quoted

quoted

quoted

the patches.

Ira, Hal?

Having just been through a development of a new HCA from scratch, I
found it very useful to have the separation between the core IB
functionality and what I perceive as clients of that core
infrastructure (ib_mad and ib_sa in particular). 

The separation feels natural, and it allows a more piecemeal approach -
a device can be loaded and tested with one WR at a time. Once ib_mad
gets loaded, a lot of "traffic" is created and just about the whole HCA
under development needs to work to support it.

Adding new device to IB is not an easy task and we clearly need to improve in
that area, however these merges are targeted to the end-user of IB stack which
constantly needs to load all these modules.

For the easy development, you can simply revert them in your tree.
Hope it helps.

IMHO, if these "clients" gets joined with ib_core, the path for
newcomers will be (even) steeper. I would appreciate if that particular
separation can be kept. I am fine with the other merges, and it might
as well be a good idea to join ib_mad and ib_sa,

Thanks,
Knut Omang
(lead developer of Oracle's new IB HCA, soon to appear here..:-) )

Terrific,
We are eager to see it.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

I don't see a problem with that.

Doug,

Will it be acceptable to you if Mark base his patches on this
assumption?

Yes.

Actually the new series is already posted, 
http://marc.info/?l=linux-rdma&m=146366717406108&w=2
if you can have a look at it'll be great.

Mark
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma"
in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html