Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the rdma tree
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc:     Max Gurtovoy <maxg@mellanox.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Yamin Friedman <yaminf@mellanox.com>,
        Israel Rukshin <israelr@mellanox.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
References: <20200602125647.5f5ed151@canb.auug.org.au>
 <3717aca8-9d75-33f1-ea8c-044af767ab5c@mellanox.com>
 <20200602190153.GA65026@mellanox.com>
 <8be03d71-9c72-bf88-7fd7-76ec7700474a@kernel.dk>
 <20200602190945.GC65026@mellanox.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <b8ad79a0-57cc-e823-6b99-47d59ce5dc7d@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 2 Jun 2020 15:37:26 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200602190945.GC65026@mellanox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 6/2/20 1:09 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:02:55PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 6/2/20 1:01 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:37:26AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/2/2020 5:56 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This looks good to me.
>>>>
>>>> Can you share a pointer to the tree so we'll test it in our labs ?
>>>>
>>>> need to re-test:
>>>>
>>>> 1. srq per core
>>>>
>>>> 2. srq per core + T10-PI
>>>>
>>>> And both will run with shared CQ.
>>>
>>> Max, this is too much conflict to send to Linus between your own
>>> patches. I am going to drop the nvme part of this from RDMA.
>>>
>>> Normally I don't like applying partial series, but due to this tree
>>> split, you can send the rebased nvme part through the nvme/block tree
>>> at rc1 in two weeks..
>>
>> Was going to comment that this is probably how it should have been
>> done to begin with. If we have multiple conflicts like that between
>> two trees, someone is doing something wrong...
> 
> Well, on the other hand having people add APIs in one tree and then
> (promised) consumers in another tree later on has proven problematic
> in the past. It is best to try to avoid that, but in this case I don't
> think Max will have any delay to get the API consumer into nvme in two
> weeks.

Having conflicting trees is a problem. If there's a dependency for
two trees for some new work, then just have a separate branch that's
built on those two. For NVMe core work, then it should include the
pending NVMe changes.

-- 
Jens Axboe