Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762498AbZLPRPQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:15:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762279AbZLPRPO (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:15:14 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]:47047 "EHLO sj-iport-6.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761494AbZLPRPM (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:15:12 -0500 Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAJ6kKEurR7Hu/2dsb2JhbADAEpcFhCsEgWM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,407,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="450694335" From: Roland Dreier To: Tziporet Koren Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Yevgeny Petrilin Subject: Re: InfiniBand/RDMA merge plans for 2.6.33 References: <4B28A259.3040909@mellanox.co.il> X-Message-Flag: Warning: May contain useful information Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:15:09 -0800 In-Reply-To: <4B28A259.3040909@mellanox.co.il> (Tziporet Koren's message of "Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:03:21 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2009 17:15:10.0195 (UTC) FILETIME=[5261A430:01CA7E73] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1940 Lines: 51 > > - mlx4 SR-IOV support. Again, main problem was my lack of time. I > > agree in principle with this stuff, just want to be careful that we > > don't turn the mlx4 driver into an unmaintainable mess of "if > > (sriov) something; else something_else" all over. > Roland, > You have not sent any comments to our patches that were sent few weeks > ago on time for 2.6.32 inclusion, > and now I am surprised you do not accept them for 2.6.32. > I think we still have time to work together and fix your concerns on > mlx4 driver. > Can you send more concrete comments so we can fix them? As I said (in the text you quoted), the main problem is my lack of time. I want to read the patches over again, and I suspect we will have one more iteration before they are ready to go. There does seem to be a lot of changing from /* pv code */ to if (sriov) { /* sriov code */ } else { /* completely different pv code */ } which is to say the least not beautiful. More broadly there is a problem that I am doing 99% of the code review for RDMA kernel patches. Occasionally people get interested in isolated things, but for the most part the expectation seems to be that I will review everything, which doesn't scale. > Since we have a HW that supports SRIOV and many people are interested > in this new technology for KVM thus it is important that we drive it > now If you send a 25-patch series after -rc6, you should expect that there is a good chance of missing the next merge window. Sorry -- with the current process of expecting me to be the only reviewer for nearly everything, I simply am not going to be able to get through things in time. - R. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/