On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Roland Dreier rol...@kernel.org wrote:
[...]
I'd really rather spend my time on something actually useful like cleaning up
softroce.
Hi Roland,
Were you referring to the code that was posted here few years ago, or
you're working on something new? two comments
; Martin K.
Petersen; target-devel; Sagi Grimberg; linux-kernel
Subject: Re: linux rdma 3.14 merge plans
Sure, no problem.
Do you have a git tree with the latest versions of all the changes you want for
3.15 in a branch? That would be helpful as I catch up on applying things, so
that I don't
; linux-rdma; Martin K. Petersen; target-devel;
Sagi Grimberg; linux-kernel
Subject: Re: linux rdma 3.14 merge plans
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 07:18 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
That all said, do you have
...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas A. Bellinger
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 12:34 AM
To: Roland Dreier
Cc: Or Gerlitz; Hefty Sean; linux-rdma; Martin K. Petersen; target-devel; Sagi
Grimberg; linux-kernel
Subject: Re: linux rdma 3.14 merge plans
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 07:18 -0800, Roland Dreier
On Thu, 2014-02-06 at 16:04 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
Can you give us an estimate of when you'll have some time to give
feedback on the outstanding patches..?
I hope to get to it in the next few weeks.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
That all said, do you have an objection wrt taking this bits through
target-pending..? Given the dependencies involved, that would seem the
most logical path to take.
Perhaps not surprisingly, I would prefer to
On 05/03/2014 17:18, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
That all said, do you have an objection wrt taking this bits through
target-pending..? Given the dependencies involved, that would seem the
most logical path to take.
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 07:18 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
That all said, do you have an objection wrt taking this bits through
target-pending..? Given the dependencies involved, that would seem the
most
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Roland Dreier rol...@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
Can you give us an estimate of when you'll have some time to give
feedback on the outstanding patches..?
I hope to get to it in the next
Hi Roland,
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 23:27 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
Roland Co,
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 16:43 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote:
Roland, ping! the signature patches were posted three months ago. We
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
Can you give us an estimate of when you'll have some time to give
feedback on the outstanding patches..?
I hope to get to it in the next few weeks.
- R.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On 29/01/2014 19:56, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 01/29/14 16:06, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Didn't understand why should it matter where the copy is done (iser/block)?
In the Linux kernel community it is considered important to avoid code
duplication. Hence the proposal to keep code that copies data
On 01/30/14 09:19, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On 29/01/2014 19:56, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 01/29/14 16:06, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Didn't understand why should it matter where the copy is done
(iser/block)?
In the Linux kernel community it is considered important to avoid code
duplication. Hence the
On 30/01/2014 12:07, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 01/30/14 09:19, Or Gerlitz wrote:
Thanks for narrowing this down, I see your point, however the solution I
propose if to remove this copy altogether... for those rare cases where
fast-registration can't be done -- in SRP I think the code goes to
On 1/29/2014 4:13 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 01/28/14 22:02, Or Gerlitz wrote:
Roland, ping! the signature patches were posted three months ago.
I have a question about RDMA and T10-DIF support. The Linux block layer,
the Linux SCSI core, Linux filesystems and block drivers all support
On 29/01/2014 17:06, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Non-contiguous buffers are a well known problem/challenge for RDMA
transports, each handles them differently: iSER uses bounce buffers,
SRP registers multiple contiguous regions.
To be precise, we do it only on very special cases, normally the payload
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014, Sagi Grimberg sa...@dev.mellanox.co.il wrote:
On 1/22/2014 2:43 AM, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014, Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote:
Roland, ping! the signature patches were posted three months ago. We
deserve a response from the maintainer that goes
On 1/22/2014 2:43 AM, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote:
Roland, ping! the signature patches were posted three months ago. We
deserve a response from the maintainer that goes beyond I need to
think on that.
Responsiveness was stated by
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014, Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014, sagi grimberg sa...@mellanox.com wrote:
Thanks Nic, let me elaborate on this,
[...]
Hope this helps,
Hi Roland, with Nic's Sagi's answers @ hand, were your questions resolved?
Roland, ping! the signature
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Roland Dreier rol...@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote:
Roland, ping! the signature patches were posted three months ago. We
deserve a response from the maintainer that goes beyond I need to
think on that.
Roland Co,
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 16:43 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote:
Roland, ping! the signature patches were posted three months ago. We
deserve a response from the maintainer that goes beyond I need to
think on that.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 1:20 PM, sagi grimberg sa...@mellanox.com wrote:
Thanks Nic, let me elaborate on this,
It is true that T10-PI aims for end-to-end data-integrity, the verbs API
offer HW offload for protection
information processing which is VERY expensive for CPU computation (CRC
On 1/19/2014 5:42 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Sat, 2014-01-18 at 13:42 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
I've reviewed the API from the perspective of what's required for
implementing protection support in
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
I've reviewed the API from the perspective of what's required for
implementing protection support in iser, and currently don't have any
recommendations or objections beyond what has been proposed by Sagi Co
in
On Sat, 2014-01-18 at 13:42 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
n...@linux-iscsi.org wrote:
I've reviewed the API from the perspective of what's required for
implementing protection support in iser, and currently don't have any
recommendations
nab == Nicholas A Bellinger n...@linux-iscsi.org writes:
nab So there is not a interface in SCSI land for interacting (directly)
nab with hardware protection support, as it's primarily just telling
nab SCSI what protection modes are supported while the rest is
nab implemented in vendor specific
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 12:13 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 12:32 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
Hi Roland Co,
Just curious if your planning to take a look at this series soon for
v3.14 code..?
As you might imagine, I'd like to see it merged this round
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:14:12PM -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 12:13 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 12:32 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
Hi Roland Co,
Just curious if your planning to take a look at this series soon for
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:14:12PM -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 12:13 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 12:32 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
Hi Roland
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:42:19PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:14:12PM -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 12:13 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Mon,
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 23:42 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:14:12PM -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 12:13 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
SNIP
I haven't
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 12:32 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
Hi Roland Co,
Just curious if your planning to take a look at this series soon for
v3.14 code..?
As you might imagine, I'd like to see it merged this round in order to
move forward on iser-target protection for v3.15.
Are
Hi Roland Co,
Just curious if your planning to take a look at this series soon for
v3.14 code..?
As you might imagine, I'd like to see it merged this round in order to
move forward on iser-target protection for v3.15.
Are there any specific issues that you'd like to see addressed for an
On 1/8/2014 2:51 AM, Roland Dreier wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently there is single patch for 3.14 on your for-next branch, the
usnic driver. With 3.13 being on rc7 and likely to be released next
week, are you planning any other merges for
On 08/01/2014 02:51, Roland Dreier wrote:
The data integrity stuff I'm not so sure about. Sean raised some I think
legitimate questions about whether all this should be added to the verbs API
and I want to see more discussion or at least have a deep think about this
myself before comitting.
Hi Roland,
Currently there is single patch for 3.14 on your for-next branch, the
usnic driver. With 3.13 being on rc7 and likely to be released next
week, are you planning any other merges for 3.14? we have patches
waiting for weeks and months without any comment from you.
Or.
--
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Or Gerlitz or.gerl...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently there is single patch for 3.14 on your for-next branch, the
usnic driver. With 3.13 being on rc7 and likely to be released next
week, are you planning any other merges for 3.14? we have patches
waiting for weeks
37 matches
Mail list logo
