Message ID | 20191209224935.1780117-1-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Intel Wired LAN Driver Updates 2019-12-09 | expand |
On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 02:49:15PM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > This series contains the initial implementation of the Virtual Bus, > virtbus_device, virtbus_driver, updates to 'ice' and 'i40e' to use the new > Virtual Bus and the new RDMA driver 'irdma' for use with 'ice' and 'i40e'. > > The primary purpose of the Virtual bus is to provide a matching service > and to pass the data pointer contained in the virtbus_device to the > virtbus_driver during its probe call. This will allow two separate > kernel objects to match up and start communication. > > The last 16 patches of the series adds a unified Intel Ethernet Protocol > driver for RDMA that supports a new network device E810 (iWARP and > RoCEv2 capable) and the existing X722 iWARP device. The driver > architecture provides the extensibility for future generations of Intel > hardware supporting RDMA. > > The 'irdma' driver replaces the legacy X722 driver i40iw and extends the > ABI already defined for i40iw. It is backward compatible with legacy > X722 rdma-core provider (libi40iw). > > This series currently builds against net-next tree AND the rdma "for-next" > branch. > > v1: Initial virtual bus submission > v2: Added example virtbus_dev and virtbus_drv in > tools/testing/sefltests/ to test the virtual bus and provide an > example on how to implement > v3: Added ice and i40e driver changes to implement the virtual bus, also > added the new irdma driver which is the RDMA driver which > communicates with the ice and i40e drivers Seems pretty premature to ask for a pull request after I rejected your first 2 submissions and have not seen a valid implementation yet. Please give me a few days to review this... greg k-h
On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 02:49:15PM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > This series contains the initial implementation of the Virtual Bus, > virtbus_device, virtbus_driver, updates to 'ice' and 'i40e' to use the new > Virtual Bus and the new RDMA driver 'irdma' for use with 'ice' and 'i40e'. > > The primary purpose of the Virtual bus is to provide a matching service > and to pass the data pointer contained in the virtbus_device to the > virtbus_driver during its probe call. This will allow two separate > kernel objects to match up and start communication. > > The last 16 patches of the series adds a unified Intel Ethernet Protocol > driver for RDMA that supports a new network device E810 (iWARP and > RoCEv2 capable) and the existing X722 iWARP device. The driver > architecture provides the extensibility for future generations of Intel > hardware supporting RDMA. > > The 'irdma' driver replaces the legacy X722 driver i40iw and extends the > ABI already defined for i40iw. It is backward compatible with legacy > X722 rdma-core provider (libi40iw). Please don't send new RDMA drivers in pull requests to net. This driver is completely unreviewed at this point. Jason
On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 13:22 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 02:49:15PM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > This series contains the initial implementation of the Virtual Bus, > > virtbus_device, virtbus_driver, updates to 'ice' and 'i40e' to use the > > new > > Virtual Bus and the new RDMA driver 'irdma' for use with 'ice' and > > 'i40e'. > > > > The primary purpose of the Virtual bus is to provide a matching service > > and to pass the data pointer contained in the virtbus_device to the > > virtbus_driver during its probe call. This will allow two separate > > kernel objects to match up and start communication. > > > > The last 16 patches of the series adds a unified Intel Ethernet > > Protocol > > driver for RDMA that supports a new network device E810 (iWARP and > > RoCEv2 capable) and the existing X722 iWARP device. The driver > > architecture provides the extensibility for future generations of Intel > > hardware supporting RDMA. > > > > The 'irdma' driver replaces the legacy X722 driver i40iw and extends > > the > > ABI already defined for i40iw. It is backward compatible with legacy > > X722 rdma-core provider (libi40iw). > > Please don't send new RDMA drivers in pull requests to net. This > driver is completely unreviewed at this point. This was done because you requested a for a single pull request in an earlier submission 9 months ago. I am fine with breaking up submission, even though the RDMA driver would be dependent upon the virtual bus and LAN driver changes.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:06:41AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > Please don't send new RDMA drivers in pull requests to net. This > > driver is completely unreviewed at this point. > > This was done because you requested a for a single pull request in an > earlier submission 9 months ago. I am fine with breaking up submission, > even though the RDMA driver would be dependent upon the virtual bus and LAN > driver changes. If I said that I ment a single pull request *to RDMA* with Dave's acks on the net side, not a single pull request to net. Given the growth of the net side changes this may be better to use a shared branch methodology. Jason
On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 14:25 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:06:41AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > > Please don't send new RDMA drivers in pull requests to net. This > > > driver is completely unreviewed at this point. > > > > This was done because you requested a for a single pull request in an > > earlier submission 9 months ago. I am fine with breaking up > > submission, > > even though the RDMA driver would be dependent upon the virtual bus and > > LAN > > driver changes. > > If I said that I ment a single pull request *to RDMA* with Dave's acks > on the net side, not a single pull request to net. > > Given the growth of the net side changes this may be better to use a > shared branch methodology. I am open to any suggestions you have on submitting these changes that has the least amount of thrash for all the maintainers involved. My concerns for submitting the network driver changes to the RDMA tree is that it will cause David Miller a headache when taking additional LAN driver changes that would be affected by the changes that were taken into the RDMA tree. We can hash this out later if need be, since it is clear there are changes needed to the current series.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:41:54AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 14:25 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:06:41AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > > > Please don't send new RDMA drivers in pull requests to net. This > > > > driver is completely unreviewed at this point. > > > > > > This was done because you requested a for a single pull request in an > > > earlier submission 9 months ago. I am fine with breaking up > > > submission, > > > even though the RDMA driver would be dependent upon the virtual bus and > > > LAN > > > driver changes. > > > > If I said that I ment a single pull request *to RDMA* with Dave's acks > > on the net side, not a single pull request to net. > > > > Given the growth of the net side changes this may be better to use a > > shared branch methodology. > > I am open to any suggestions you have on submitting these changes that has > the least amount of thrash for all the maintainers involved. > > My concerns for submitting the network driver changes to the RDMA tree is > that it will cause David Miller a headache when taking additional LAN > driver changes that would be affected by the changes that were taken into > the RDMA tree. If you send the PR to rdma then you must refrain from sending changes to net that would conflict with it. I also do not want a headache with conflicts to a huge rdma driver in net, so you cannot send it to -net. Mellanox uses a shared branch approach now, it is working well but requires discipline to execute. You can also send your changes to net, wait a cycle then send the rdma changes. IIRC one of the other drivers is working this way. Jason
On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 15:11 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:41:54AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 14:25 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 10:06:41AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > > > > Please don't send new RDMA drivers in pull requests to net. This > > > > > driver is completely unreviewed at this point. > > > > > > > > This was done because you requested a for a single pull request in > > > > an > > > > earlier submission 9 months ago. I am fine with breaking up > > > > submission, > > > > even though the RDMA driver would be dependent upon the virtual bus > > > > and > > > > LAN > > > > driver changes. > > > > > > If I said that I ment a single pull request *to RDMA* with Dave's > > > acks > > > on the net side, not a single pull request to net. > > > > > > Given the growth of the net side changes this may be better to use a > > > shared branch methodology. > > > > I am open to any suggestions you have on submitting these changes that > > has > > the least amount of thrash for all the maintainers involved. > > > > My concerns for submitting the network driver changes to the RDMA tree > > is > > that it will cause David Miller a headache when taking additional LAN > > driver changes that would be affected by the changes that were taken > > into > > the RDMA tree. > > If you send the PR to rdma then you must refrain from sending changes > to net that would conflict with it. Yeah, that will be tough, since we will have *literally* hundreds of patches for the ice driver for the 5.6 kernel. > > I also do not want a headache with conflicts to a huge rdma driver in > net, so you cannot send it to -net. Agreed, I do not want to cause you or David Miller any headaches. It was not clear on what additional changes the RDMA team would have once their driver got upstream. > Mellanox uses a shared branch approach now, it is working well but > requires discipline to execute. Wouldn't a shared branch cause issues for either you or David Miller to pull from, since it has changes from the RDMA and net-next tree's? > You can also send your changes to net, wait a cycle then send the rdma > changes. IIRC one of the other drivers is working this way. This sounds like the best option currently, since there is still a lot of work being done in the ice driver. Since Greg wanted to see driver examples, using the virtual bus, I can send the RDMA driver patches as RFC in future submissions. This way, we can make sure the implementation is acceptable and will be ready for submission, once the virtual bus and LAN driver changes are accepted.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:23:32AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > > I also do not want a headache with conflicts to a huge rdma driver in > > net, so you cannot send it to -net. > > Agreed, I do not want to cause you or David Miller any headaches. It was > not clear on what additional changes the RDMA team would have once their > driver got upstream. It isn't about your changes. We often do tree-wide change the RDMA APIs toward the driver. For instance Leon's work to add restracks and to move allocations out of drivers. If any driver is out of the rdma.git tree then this is all broken for us. > > Mellanox uses a shared branch approach now, it is working well but > > requires discipline to execute. > > Wouldn't a shared branch cause issues for either you or David Miller to > pull from, since it has changes from the RDMA and net-next tree's? The shared tree approach requires discipline and bunch of special considerations go into constructing it and organizing patches to make it work. When done properly there are no issues. > > You can also send your changes to net, wait a cycle then send the rdma > > changes. IIRC one of the other drivers is working this way. > > This sounds like the best option currently, since there is still a lot of > work being done in the ice driver. Since Greg wanted to see driver > examples, using the virtual bus, I can send the RDMA driver patches as RFC > in future submissions. This way, we can make sure the implementation is > acceptable and will be ready for submission, once the virtual bus and LAN > driver changes are accepted. OK Jason