Re: [PATCH V1 for-next 0/2] Support for Send Only Full Member multicast join

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 10:37:52PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:

On Sun, 2016-07-24 at 16:11 +0300, Matan Barak wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

Added UCMA and CMA support for multicast join flags. Flags are
passed using UCMA CM join command previously reserved fields.
Currently supporting two join flags indicating two different
multicast JoinStates:

1. Full Member:
   The initiator creates the Multicast group(MCG) if it wasn't
   previously created, can send Multicast messages to the group
   and receive messages from the MCG.

2. Send Only Full Member:
   The initiator creates the Multicast group(MCG) if it wasn't
   previously created, can send Multicast messages to the group
   but doesn't receive any messages from the MCG.

Since Send Only Full Member requires SM support a new cached
SA port attribute containing SM ClassPortInfo fields was added
(ClassPortInfo fields: Table 126 IB Spec 1.3.). The attribute
is cached to avoid resending queries, caching is done when a
successful ClassPortInfo reply is received on the port.
Invalidation of the attribute is done on SM change events,
SM re-registration events, and SM LID change events. The fields
in ClassPortInfo should not change during SM runtime without an
event.

The changes compared to v0 of this patch series are:
 * Use multicast.c join state enum instead of the new added bits
   defined by IB_SA_MCMEMBER_REC_JOIN_STATE in ib_sa.h
 * Remove ib_sa_port struct alignment spaces

Alex Vesker (2):
  IB/sa: Add cached attribute containing SM information to SA port
  IB/core: Support for CMA multicast join flags

Hi Doug,

This series conflicts with c65f6c5a3650 ('IB/core: Fix RoCE v1
multicast join logic issue') which was merged to your k.o/for-4.7-rc
branch.
The solution for this conflict requires to take the hunk for cma.c
from this series.

If it's required to respin this series above c65f6c5a3650, please
just say so.

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to.  The series applied
cleanly for me.  However, it's in my misc branch (to be pushed shortly)
, please double check that there isn't something wrong.

I checked it and everything looks correct.

Such false alarm came from our internal merge test of net-next which
was based on v4.7-rc5 stage and your rdma-next (+ our patches) tree
which was based on v4.7-rc4.

Thanks.

-- 
Doug Ledford [off-list ref]
              GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD