Message ID | 1557236319-9986-1-git-send-email-maxg@mellanox.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Introduce new API for T10-PI offload | expand |
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:38:14PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > Israel Rukshin (12): > RDMA/core: Introduce IB_MR_TYPE_INTEGRITY and ib_alloc_mr_integrity > API > IB/iser: Refactor iscsi_iser_check_protection function > IB/iser: Use IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY for PI handover > IB/iser: Unwind WR union at iser_tx_desc > IB/iser: Remove unused sig_attrs argument > IB/isert: Remove unused sig_attrs argument > RDMA/core: Add an integrity MR pool support > RDMA/rw: Fix doc typo > RDMA/rw: Print the correct number of sig MRs > RDMA/rw: Use IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY for PI handover > RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code > RDMA/mlx5: Improve PI handover performance > > Max Gurtovoy (13): > RDMA/core: Introduce new header file for signature operations > RDMA/core: Save the MR type in the ib_mr structure > RDMA/core: Introduce ib_map_mr_sg_pi to map data/protection sgl's > RDMA/core: Add signature attrs element for ib_mr structure > RDMA/mlx5: Implement mlx5_ib_map_mr_sg_pi and > mlx5_ib_alloc_mr_integrity > RDMA/mlx5: Add attr for max number page list length for PI operation > RDMA/mlx5: Pass UMR segment flags instead of boolean > RDMA/mlx5: Update set_sig_data_segment attribute for new signature API > RDMA/mlx5: Introduce and implement new IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY work > request > RDMA/mlx5: Move signature_en attribute from mlx5_qp to ib_qp > RDMA/core: Validate signature handover device cap > RDMA/rw: Add info regarding SG count failure > RDMA/mlx5: Use PA mapping for PI handover Max this is really too many patches now, can you please split this up. Can several patches be applied right now as bug fixes like: RDMA/rw: Fix doc typo RDMA/rw: Print the correct number of sig MRs RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code RDMA/rw: Add info regarding SG count failure ?? Thanks, Jason
On 5/7/2019 4:42 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:38:14PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >> Israel Rukshin (12): >> RDMA/core: Introduce IB_MR_TYPE_INTEGRITY and ib_alloc_mr_integrity >> API >> IB/iser: Refactor iscsi_iser_check_protection function >> IB/iser: Use IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY for PI handover >> IB/iser: Unwind WR union at iser_tx_desc >> IB/iser: Remove unused sig_attrs argument >> IB/isert: Remove unused sig_attrs argument >> RDMA/core: Add an integrity MR pool support >> RDMA/rw: Fix doc typo >> RDMA/rw: Print the correct number of sig MRs >> RDMA/rw: Use IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY for PI handover >> RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code >> RDMA/mlx5: Improve PI handover performance >> >> Max Gurtovoy (13): >> RDMA/core: Introduce new header file for signature operations >> RDMA/core: Save the MR type in the ib_mr structure >> RDMA/core: Introduce ib_map_mr_sg_pi to map data/protection sgl's >> RDMA/core: Add signature attrs element for ib_mr structure >> RDMA/mlx5: Implement mlx5_ib_map_mr_sg_pi and >> mlx5_ib_alloc_mr_integrity >> RDMA/mlx5: Add attr for max number page list length for PI operation >> RDMA/mlx5: Pass UMR segment flags instead of boolean >> RDMA/mlx5: Update set_sig_data_segment attribute for new signature API >> RDMA/mlx5: Introduce and implement new IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY work >> request >> RDMA/mlx5: Move signature_en attribute from mlx5_qp to ib_qp >> RDMA/core: Validate signature handover device cap >> RDMA/rw: Add info regarding SG count failure >> RDMA/mlx5: Use PA mapping for PI handover > Max this is really too many patches now, can you please split this > up. > > Can several patches be applied right now as bug fixes like: > > RDMA/rw: Fix doc typo > RDMA/rw: Print the correct number of sig MRs > RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code > RDMA/rw: Add info regarding SG count failure > > ?? Yes we can. Except of "RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code". Patches that also can be merged now are: "IB/iser: Remove unused sig_attrs argument" "IB/isert: Remove unused sig_attrs argument" what is the merge plan ? are we going to squeeze this to 5.2 or 5.3 ? which branch should we sent the 5 patches from above ? > > Thanks, > Jason
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:54:56PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > On 5/7/2019 4:42 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:38:14PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > Israel Rukshin (12): > > > RDMA/core: Introduce IB_MR_TYPE_INTEGRITY and ib_alloc_mr_integrity > > > API > > > IB/iser: Refactor iscsi_iser_check_protection function > > > IB/iser: Use IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY for PI handover > > > IB/iser: Unwind WR union at iser_tx_desc > > > IB/iser: Remove unused sig_attrs argument > > > IB/isert: Remove unused sig_attrs argument > > > RDMA/core: Add an integrity MR pool support > > > RDMA/rw: Fix doc typo > > > RDMA/rw: Print the correct number of sig MRs > > > RDMA/rw: Use IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY for PI handover > > > RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code > > > RDMA/mlx5: Improve PI handover performance > > > > > > Max Gurtovoy (13): > > > RDMA/core: Introduce new header file for signature operations > > > RDMA/core: Save the MR type in the ib_mr structure > > > RDMA/core: Introduce ib_map_mr_sg_pi to map data/protection sgl's > > > RDMA/core: Add signature attrs element for ib_mr structure > > > RDMA/mlx5: Implement mlx5_ib_map_mr_sg_pi and > > > mlx5_ib_alloc_mr_integrity > > > RDMA/mlx5: Add attr for max number page list length for PI operation > > > RDMA/mlx5: Pass UMR segment flags instead of boolean > > > RDMA/mlx5: Update set_sig_data_segment attribute for new signature API > > > RDMA/mlx5: Introduce and implement new IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY work > > > request > > > RDMA/mlx5: Move signature_en attribute from mlx5_qp to ib_qp > > > RDMA/core: Validate signature handover device cap > > > RDMA/rw: Add info regarding SG count failure > > > RDMA/mlx5: Use PA mapping for PI handover > > Max this is really too many patches now, can you please split this > > up. > > > > Can several patches be applied right now as bug fixes like: > > > > RDMA/rw: Fix doc typo > > RDMA/rw: Print the correct number of sig MRs > > RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code > > RDMA/rw: Add info regarding SG count failure > > > > ?? > > Yes we can. Except of "RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code". > > Patches that also can be merged now are: > > "IB/iser: Remove unused sig_attrs argument" > > "IB/isert: Remove unused sig_attrs argument" > > what is the merge plan ? > > are we going to squeeze this to 5.2 or 5.3 ? The 5.2 merge window is now open so it will not make 5.2 > which branch should we sent the 5 patches from above ? It is probably best to repost this thing split up against 5.2-rc1 in two weeks, I'll drop it off patchworks until then. Jason
On 5/7/2019 5:08 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:54:56PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >> On 5/7/2019 4:42 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >>> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:38:14PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: >>>> Israel Rukshin (12): >>>> RDMA/core: Introduce IB_MR_TYPE_INTEGRITY and ib_alloc_mr_integrity >>>> API >>>> IB/iser: Refactor iscsi_iser_check_protection function >>>> IB/iser: Use IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY for PI handover >>>> IB/iser: Unwind WR union at iser_tx_desc >>>> IB/iser: Remove unused sig_attrs argument >>>> IB/isert: Remove unused sig_attrs argument >>>> RDMA/core: Add an integrity MR pool support >>>> RDMA/rw: Fix doc typo >>>> RDMA/rw: Print the correct number of sig MRs >>>> RDMA/rw: Use IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY for PI handover >>>> RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code >>>> RDMA/mlx5: Improve PI handover performance >>>> >>>> Max Gurtovoy (13): >>>> RDMA/core: Introduce new header file for signature operations >>>> RDMA/core: Save the MR type in the ib_mr structure >>>> RDMA/core: Introduce ib_map_mr_sg_pi to map data/protection sgl's >>>> RDMA/core: Add signature attrs element for ib_mr structure >>>> RDMA/mlx5: Implement mlx5_ib_map_mr_sg_pi and >>>> mlx5_ib_alloc_mr_integrity >>>> RDMA/mlx5: Add attr for max number page list length for PI operation >>>> RDMA/mlx5: Pass UMR segment flags instead of boolean >>>> RDMA/mlx5: Update set_sig_data_segment attribute for new signature API >>>> RDMA/mlx5: Introduce and implement new IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY work >>>> request >>>> RDMA/mlx5: Move signature_en attribute from mlx5_qp to ib_qp >>>> RDMA/core: Validate signature handover device cap >>>> RDMA/rw: Add info regarding SG count failure >>>> RDMA/mlx5: Use PA mapping for PI handover >>> Max this is really too many patches now, can you please split this >>> up. >>> >>> Can several patches be applied right now as bug fixes like: >>> >>> RDMA/rw: Fix doc typo >>> RDMA/rw: Print the correct number of sig MRs >>> RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code >>> RDMA/rw: Add info regarding SG count failure >>> >>> ?? >> Yes we can. Except of "RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code". >> >> Patches that also can be merged now are: >> >> "IB/iser: Remove unused sig_attrs argument" >> >> "IB/isert: Remove unused sig_attrs argument" >> >> what is the merge plan ? >> >> are we going to squeeze this to 5.2 or 5.3 ? > The 5.2 merge window is now open so it will not make 5.2 Can we merge it to your for-5.3 branch after getting green light on this series ? > >> which branch should we sent the 5 patches from above ? > It is probably best to repost this thing split up against 5.2-rc1 in > two weeks, I'll drop it off patchworks until then. Sure, but please approve it to avoid another review cycle. > Jason
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 05:17:46PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > On 5/7/2019 5:08 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:54:56PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > On 5/7/2019 4:42 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:38:14PM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > > > Israel Rukshin (12): > > > > > RDMA/core: Introduce IB_MR_TYPE_INTEGRITY and ib_alloc_mr_integrity > > > > > API > > > > > IB/iser: Refactor iscsi_iser_check_protection function > > > > > IB/iser: Use IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY for PI handover > > > > > IB/iser: Unwind WR union at iser_tx_desc > > > > > IB/iser: Remove unused sig_attrs argument > > > > > IB/isert: Remove unused sig_attrs argument > > > > > RDMA/core: Add an integrity MR pool support > > > > > RDMA/rw: Fix doc typo > > > > > RDMA/rw: Print the correct number of sig MRs > > > > > RDMA/rw: Use IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY for PI handover > > > > > RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code > > > > > RDMA/mlx5: Improve PI handover performance > > > > > > > > > > Max Gurtovoy (13): > > > > > RDMA/core: Introduce new header file for signature operations > > > > > RDMA/core: Save the MR type in the ib_mr structure > > > > > RDMA/core: Introduce ib_map_mr_sg_pi to map data/protection sgl's > > > > > RDMA/core: Add signature attrs element for ib_mr structure > > > > > RDMA/mlx5: Implement mlx5_ib_map_mr_sg_pi and > > > > > mlx5_ib_alloc_mr_integrity > > > > > RDMA/mlx5: Add attr for max number page list length for PI operation > > > > > RDMA/mlx5: Pass UMR segment flags instead of boolean > > > > > RDMA/mlx5: Update set_sig_data_segment attribute for new signature API > > > > > RDMA/mlx5: Introduce and implement new IB_WR_REG_MR_INTEGRITY work > > > > > request > > > > > RDMA/mlx5: Move signature_en attribute from mlx5_qp to ib_qp > > > > > RDMA/core: Validate signature handover device cap > > > > > RDMA/rw: Add info regarding SG count failure > > > > > RDMA/mlx5: Use PA mapping for PI handover > > > > Max this is really too many patches now, can you please split this > > > > up. > > > > > > > > Can several patches be applied right now as bug fixes like: > > > > > > > > RDMA/rw: Fix doc typo > > > > RDMA/rw: Print the correct number of sig MRs > > > > RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code > > > > RDMA/rw: Add info regarding SG count failure > > > > > > > > ?? > > > Yes we can. Except of "RDMA/core: Remove unused IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR code". > > > > > > Patches that also can be merged now are: > > > > > > "IB/iser: Remove unused sig_attrs argument" > > > > > > "IB/isert: Remove unused sig_attrs argument" > > > > > > what is the merge plan ? > > > > > > are we going to squeeze this to 5.2 or 5.3 ? > > The 5.2 merge window is now open so it will not make 5.2 > > Can we merge it to your for-5.3 branch after getting green light on this > series ? That branch will start only when rc1 comes out. > > > which branch should we sent the 5 patches from above ? > > It is probably best to repost this thing split up against 5.2-rc1 in > > two weeks, I'll drop it off patchworks until then. > > Sure, but please approve it to avoid another review cycle. Well you almost certainly will need to repost it after rebasing it.. So I need new patches - both others can Ack your approach.. Jason