Doug,
Do you have everything in place such that what you stage for upstream
is subject to linux-next auto merge tests and such?
Or.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On 5/27/2015 12:11 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:32:58PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
- ifcfg/udev/networkmanager: So what happens when I do
ip link add link ib0 name ib0.1 type ipoib
And get two IPoIB interfaces with the same GUID? I doubt any sane
user
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:39:04PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
Jason, you (U2 BTW) play really, really hard - refusing to say **one**
word on your approach towards the built-in udata mechanism for uverbs
Hello,
I am trying to send a port info request to all the ports in a switch,
one after the other.
I am sending all requests to the same switch in sequence through the
same directed routing path:
Request port number 1
Request port number 2
Request port number 3
Request port number 4
But
Hi Jesus,
On 5/27/2015 8:56 AM, Jesus Camacho Villanueva wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to send a port info request to all the ports in a switch,
one after the other.
I am sending all requests to the same switch in sequence through the
same directed routing path:
Request port number 1
On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 12:50 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
Doug,
Do you have everything in place such that what you stage for upstream
is subject to linux-next auto merge tests and such?
Or.
No, I have 0day in place, but not linux-next to my knowledge (unless
Stephen already set it up, but I
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 04:03:33PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 05:23:45PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:27:35PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 04:13:23AM -0400, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
-struct ib_rmpp_mad {
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 01:53:11PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
This basic idea is exactly why I think we should stick with the 20
byte LLADDR for ILFA_VF_MAC. It gives a route for the PF to tell the
VF what QPN to use for IPoIB (if we ever see HW support to implement that)
If we use 8
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 02:54:12PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:39:04PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
Jason, you (U2 BTW) play really, really hard - refusing to say **one**
word on
On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 11:11 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:14:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Because the QPN is part of the LLADDR IB can create two interfaces on
the same physical port that are completely separated by hardware. Read
Haggi's email, he explains
The switches are unmanaged.
Is it possible to ensure in-order packets with managed switches?
Jesus
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Hal Rosenstock h...@dev.mellanox.co.il wrote:
On 5/27/2015 10:16 AM, Jesus Camacho Villanueva wrote:
Hi Hal,
Thanks for your quick response :)
What you say
On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 16:17 +, Liran Liss wrote:
From: Hefty, Sean [mailto:sean.he...@intel.com]
these remaining resources may be device-specific.
The proposed framework first of all allows a provider to indicate
whether hot-removal is supported (i.e., the presence of the
On 5/27/2015 11:31 AM, Jesus Camacho Villanueva wrote:
The switches are unmanaged.
Is it possible to ensure in-order packets with managed switches?
No; same issue as I previously mentioned exists with both.
Unmanaged switches just use firmware whereas managed switches have CPU
and kernel in
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 10:54 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:10:36PM +0300, Yishai Hadas wrote:
+ struct srcu_struct disassociate_srcu;
There is no need for rcu for this, use a rw sem.
The rcu was used becuase it's on the hot path I assume.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:20:05AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
j.gli...@gmail.com writes:
Noted your grammar fixes.
diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
index 52ffb86..189e48f 100644
--- a/mm/Kconfig
+++ b/mm/Kconfig
@@ -653,3 +653,18 @@ config DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT
Hi Hal,
Thanks for your quick response :)
What you say here makes sense. I have seen this behaviour in one of
the switches, but I don't discard that this problem can arise in other
switches.
The switch is: Infiniscale-IV Mellanox Technologies 4xQDR
Jesus
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Hal
On 5/27/2015 10:16 AM, Jesus Camacho Villanueva wrote:
Hi Hal,
Thanks for your quick response :)
What you say here makes sense. I have seen this behaviour in one of
the switches, but I don't discard that this problem can arise in other
switches.
Note that for MADs, transaction ID is
On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 15:11 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:32:58PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Not so much ethernet world as netdevice world. The iproute2 program is
used to configure any and all netdevices, ethernet or otherwise. Right
now, we can abuse it to
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 12:50 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
Doug,
Do you have everything in place such that what you stage for upstream
is subject to linux-next auto merge tests and such?
Or.
No, I have 0day in place, but
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:04:29PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 10:54 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:10:36PM +0300, Yishai Hadas wrote:
+ struct srcu_struct disassociate_srcu;
There is no need for rcu for this, use a
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:14:06AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
Because the QPN is part of the LLADDR IB can create two interfaces on
the same physical port that are completely separated by hardware. Read
Haggi's email, he explains how they plan to use this to create
interfaces that can be
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 02:54:12PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Jason Gunthorpe
jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:39:04PM +0300, Or Gerlitz
On 5/27/2015 7:04 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 10:54 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:10:36PM +0300, Yishai Hadas wrote:
+ struct srcu_struct disassociate_srcu;
There is no need for rcu for this, use a rw sem.
The rcu was
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:04:29PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
On Mon, 2015-05-25 at 10:54 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:10:36PM +0300, Yishai Hadas wrote:
+ struct
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 11:02 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Doug,
On Wed, 27 May 2015 09:13:29 -0400 Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote:
Stephen, can you set it up so that the linux-next tag from
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dledford/rdma.git is added
to the
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 11:40 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Doug, Roland,
On Wed, 27 May 2015 21:14:03 -0400 Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote:
Also, how does this relate to Roland's infiniband tree
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/roland/infiniband.git#for-next)
Hi Jason
My reply is delayed since I was on vacation.
-Original Message-
From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 11:53 PM
To: Selvin Xavier
Cc: Doug Ledford; linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.1 10/11]
Hi Doug,
On Wed, 27 May 2015 09:13:29 -0400 Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote:
Stephen, can you set it up so that the linux-next tag from
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dledford/rdma.git is added
to the linux-next testing please?
I haven't fetched tags in the past, only
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:58:59AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 11:11 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Well, let's just be clear: netlink/iproute2 screwed the pooch on their
implementation of this
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 11:11 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Well, let's just be clear: netlink/iproute2 screwed the pooch on their
implementation of this stuff. Any solution that doesn't include fixing
this up in some way
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:33:58AM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
(2) instantly rejecting a usage of a mechanism existing just for that
use case since the first year of our life (2005)
I didn't reject anything, I said I wanted to see the user side to
continue my review.
This series is (1) simple
31 matches
Mail list logo
