On Sun, 2015-05-17 at 08:50 +0300, Haggai Eran wrote: > Thanks again everyone for the review comments. I've updated the patch set > accordingly. The main changes are in the first patch to use a read-write > semaphore instead of an SRCU, and with the reference counting of shared > ib_cm_ids. > Please let me know if I missed anything, or if there are other issues with > the series.
Hi Haggai, I know you are probably busy reworking this right now on the basis of Jason's comments. However, my biggest issue with this patch set right now is not technical (well, it is, but it's only partially technical). This is a core feature more than anything else. Namespaces for RDMA devices is not unique to IB or RoCE in any way. Yet no thought has been given to how this will work universally across all of the RDMA capable devices (mainly I'm talking about iWARP here...I don't think this is an issue for usNIC as if you want namespace support there, you just start the user space app in a given namespace and you are probably 90% of the way there since the user space application gets its own device and so its own MAC/IP and all of the RDMA transfers are UDP, so the application's namespace should get inherited by all the rest, but Cisco would need to confirm that, hence why I say 90% of the way there, it needs confirmed). So, while you are reworking things right now, you would ideally contact Steve Wise and/or Tatyana Nikolova and discuss the iWARP story on this. I know there won't be a lot of overlap between IB and iWARP, but last time you were asked you didn't even know if this setup could be extended to iWARP. For this next statement, I know I'm directing this to you Haggai, but please don't take it that way. I'm really using your patch set to make a broader point to everyone on the list. When I look at patches for support for a given feature, one of the things I'm going to look at is whether or not that feature is specific to a given hardware type, or if it's a generic feature. If it's a generic feature, then I'm going to want to know that the person submitting it has designed it well. A pre-requisite of designing a generic feature well is that it considers all hardware types, not just your specific hardware type. So when you come back with the next version of this patch set, please have an answer for how it should work on each hardware type even if you don't have implementation patches for each hardware type. -- Doug Ledford <dledf...@redhat.com> GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part