[PATCH 3/3] nvme-rdma: assign completion vector correctly

[Max Gurtovoy]

On 6/24/2020 5:22 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:44:06AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>> On 6/24/2020 11:37 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:34:22AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/2020 8:34 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>>>>>> The completion vector index that is given during CQ creation can't
>>>>>>> exceed the number of support vectors by the underlying RDMA device. This
>>>>>>> violation currently can accure, for example, in case one will try to
>>>>>>> connect with N regular read/write queues and M poll queues and the sum
>>>>>>> of N + M > num_supported_vectors. This will lead to failure in establish
>>>>>>> a connection to remote target. Instead, in that case, share a completion
>>>>>>> vector between queues.
>>>>>> That sounds like a RC patch? Where is the fixes line? Why is it in
>>>>>> this series?
>>>>> Agree, this should be sent as a separate patch.
>>>> The reason I sent it in 1 series is to avoid conflicts. Since all the
>>>> patches can go to nvme-5.8, I tried to make life easier.
>>>>
>>>> We can do it separately of course.
>>>>
>>>> Christoph,
>>>>
>>>> would you like to merge patches 1+2 from this series or should I send them
>>>> again as well ?
>>> I don't think 1+2 are 5.8 material, so please just resend 3 standalone
>>> for now, and then resend 1+2 once I've merged it and rebased nvme-5.9
>>> on top of nvme-5.8.
>> Ok. Actually 1+2 were aimed to be merged to 5.8 but created a conflict
>> between Jason's and Jens's trees.
>>
>> If we go this way it means we can't push new features to RDMA and use it in
>> NVMf in the same cycle.
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> can we push iSER CQ sharing to kernel-5.8 ?
> I don't think so..
>
> Where are these patches anyhow? I don't see any iser stuff in rdma
> patchworks?

These patches were developed by Yamin and reviewed by me internally 
after the merge window of 5.8.

>
> If you need a branch for something you should plan it out now.. I can
> help organize the branch process for you, but you have to plan it
> out :)

I don't think it's necessary for now.

I'll just send iSER patches for review and you can fetch them to 
for-next (5.9 merge window).


>
> Jason