Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On 11/02/2015 11:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > This too was something we discussed at the kernel summit, it's > recommended that you just delete the drivers from where they are now, no > need to move them to staging first. So, don't take any more patches against them then. I'll delete them

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On 11/04/2015 12:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:00:38AM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: >> On 11/02/2015 11:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> This too was something we discussed at the kernel summit, it's >>> recommended that you just delete the drivers from where they

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:00:38AM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 11/02/2015 11:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > This too was something we discussed at the kernel summit, it's > > recommended that you just delete the drivers from where they are now, no > > need to move them to staging first.

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

> On Nov 2, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:20:40PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: >> 1) Aging, but working, drivers that will be removed in the future. >> Since we no longer have a deprecation mechanism, I was informed that

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:20:40PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > 1) Aging, but working, drivers that will be removed in the future. > Since we no longer have a deprecation mechanism, I was informed that the > normal procedure now is to move the driver to staging for a while and > then remove it

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:02:04PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > Because they are *scheduled* for removal. If I simply didn't care if > they went away, then I wouldn't screw around with deprecating them or > tagging them to be removed, I'd just delete them. Breaking them before > the scheduled

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On 11/01/2015 01:06 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 02:10:48PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: >> On 10/29/2015 1:51 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:57:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >>> I had to do a minor hand merge to get this to apply, but it

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On 11/02/2015 06:37 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:20:40PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: >> 1) Aging, but working, drivers that will be removed in the future. >> Since we no longer have a deprecation mechanism, I was informed that the >> normal procedure now is to move the

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:02:04PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > > so overall it still benifits being in the > > staging tree, so a few minor breakages every once in a while should be > > easy for you to fix up, _if_ they happen. > > > > Again, I don't know of any recent api change that has caused

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 05:18:45PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:02:04PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > > > Because they are *scheduled* for removal. If I simply didn't care if > > they went away, then I wouldn't screw around with deprecating them or > > tagging them

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On 11/02/2015 07:18 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:02:04PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> Because they are *scheduled* for removal. If I simply didn't care if >> they went away, then I wouldn't screw around with deprecating them or >> tagging them to be removed, I'd

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:52:05PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > It shouldn't be. I reviewed those changes and they looked right (given > the limitations). All you needed was to boot with nopat on the kernel > command line to get the old kernel behavior and it would continue to > work as before,

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:03:35PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 11/02/2015 08:28 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:52:05PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> It shouldn't be. I reviewed those changes and they looked right (given > >> the limitations). All you needed was

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 10:14:06PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 11/02/2015 07:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:02:04PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > >>> so overall it still benifits being in the > >>> staging tree, so a few minor breakages every once in a while

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:03:35PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > No, one kernel consumer that never worked on iWARP before now works on a > different iWARP controller but doesn't work on the old iWARP controller. > Hardly the end of the world. NFS is gone/going as well, and that used to work. No

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On 11/02/2015 07:49 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:02:04PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: >>> so overall it still benifits being in the >>> staging tree, so a few minor breakages every once in a while should be >>> easy for you to fix up, _if_ they happen. >>> >>> Again, I

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On 10/29/2015 1:51 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:57:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > >I had to do a minor hand merge to get this to apply, but it has been > >pulled in for 4.4. > >This breaks all of the drivers in staging BTW. That will need fixed up >before the

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 02:10:48PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: > On 10/29/2015 1:51 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:57:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > >I had to do a minor hand merge to get this to apply, but it has been > >pulled in for 4.4. > >>> > >>>This

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:57:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > > I had to do a minor hand merge to get this to apply, but it has been > > pulled in for 4.4. > > This breaks all of the drivers in staging BTW. That will need fixed up > before the pull request goes in during the merge window.

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On 10/29/2015 07:51 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:57:59PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: >>> I had to do a minor hand merge to get this to apply, but it has been >>> pulled in for 4.4. >> >> This breaks all of the drivers in staging BTW. That will need fixed up >> before

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On 10/28/2015 10:25 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 09/13/2015 11:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> This series shrinks the WR size by splitting out the different WR >> types. >> >> Patch number one is too large for the mailinglist, so if you didn't >> get it grab it here: >> >> >>

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On 09/13/2015 11:13 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This series shrinks the WR size by splitting out the different WR > types. > > Patch number one is too large for the mailinglist, so if you didn't > get it grab it here: > > >

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:13:33PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This series shrinks the WR size by splitting out the different WR > types. > > Patch number one is too large for the mailinglist, so if you didn't > get it grab it here: > > >

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V4

On 13/09/2015 18:13, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This series shrinks the WR size by splitting out the different WR > types. > > Patch number one is too large for the mailinglist, so if you didn't > get it grab it here: > > >

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V3

On 08/31/2015 08:24 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 08/31/2015 12:11 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:31:35PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote: - patch 2 now explicitly replaces the weird overloading in the mlx5 driver with an explicit embedding of struct

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V3

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:31:35PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote: >> - patch 2 now explicitly replaces the weird overloading in the mlx5 >> driver with an explicit embedding of struct ib_send_wr, similar >> to what we do for all other MRs. > > That's nice, > > There is one non-trivial spot

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V3

On 08/31/2015 12:11 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:31:35PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote: >>> - patch 2 now explicitly replaces the weird overloading in the mlx5 >>> driver with an explicit embedding of struct ib_send_wr, similar >>> to what we do for all other

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V3

On 8/30/2015 6:31 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: - patch 2 now explicitly replaces the weird overloading in the mlx5 driver with an explicit embedding of struct ib_send_wr, similar to what we do for all other MRs. That's nice, There is one non-trivial spot that was missed in

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr V3

- patch 2 now explicitly replaces the weird overloading in the mlx5 driver with an explicit embedding of struct ib_send_wr, similar to what we do for all other MRs. That's nice, There is one non-trivial spot that was missed in mlx5_ib_post_send though: diff --git

shrink struct ib_send_wr V3

This series shrinks the WR size by splitting out the different WR types. Patch number two is too large for the mailinglist, so if you didn't get it grab it here: http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/rdma.git/commitdiff/2b63f958de7bd630aba85caf65986831d4372869 or the full git tree at:

Re: shrink struct ib_send_wr

- patch 2 now explicitly replaces the weird overloading in the mlx5 driver with an explicit embedding of struct ib_send_wr, similar to what we do for all other MRs. This is on the user-space memory registration path. Haggai, can you grab it for a Tested-by tag? -- To unsubscribe from

shrink struct ib_send_wr

This series shrinks the WR size by splitting out the different WR types. Patch number two is too large for the mailinglist, so if you didn't get it grab it here: http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/rdma.git/commitdiff/30e522ee6c1d7adb614d7308f09fbfd71c6d3e07 or the full git tree at: