Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 18:29:57 +0900
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
To:     Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
Cc:     Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        Nikolay Kichukov <nikolay@oldum.net>
Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH v5 11/11] net/9p: allocate appropriate
 reduced message buffers
Message-ID: <Ys6QlcShhji2sx9V@codewreck.org>
References: <cover.1657636554.git.linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
 <Ys3Mj+SgWLzhQGWK@codewreck.org>
 <Ys3jjg52EIyITPua@codewreck.org>
 <4284956.GYXQZuIPEp@silver>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4284956.GYXQZuIPEp@silver>
Precedence: bulk

Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 11:19:48AM +0200:
> > - for this particular patch, we can still allocate smaller short buffers
> > for requests, so we should probably keep tsize to 0.
> > rsize there really isn't much we can do without a protocol change
> > though...
> 
> Good to know! I don't have any RDMA setup here to test, so I rely on what you 
> say and adjust this in v6 accordingly, along with the strcmp -> flag change of 
> course.

Yeah... I've got a connect-x 3 (mlx4, got a cheap old one) card laying
around, I need to find somewhere to plug it in and actually run some
validation again at some point.
Haven't used 9p/RDMA since I left my previous work in 2020...

I'll try to find time for that before the merge


> As this flag is going to be very RDMA-transport specific, I'm still scratching 
> my head for a good name though.

The actual limitation is that receive buffers are pooled, so something
to like pooled_rcv_buffers or shared_rcv_buffers or anything along that
line?

--
Dominique