Return-Path: Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.232.25]:3363 "EHLO relay.sw.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932083Ab0I3Pek (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:34:40 -0400 Message-ID: <4CA4ADEA.2010700@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:34:02 +0400 From: Pavel Emelyanov To: Chuck Lever CC: "J. Bruce Fields" , Trond Myklebust , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] sunrpc: Create sockets in namespaces References: <4CA32AB4.2090808@parallels.com> <20100929214527.GC26180@fieldses.org> <0678928F-3DE0-4AB9-8CD9-7BDA3A362A20@oracle.com> <4CA42437.3090102@parallels.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On 09/30/2010 07:16 PM, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Sep 30, 2010, at 1:46 AM, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > >>>> Shall I commit this to my for-2.6.37 tree? Objections? >>> >>> I think it looks OK. >>> >>> But I was wondering if there were any other changes needed for the RDMA >>> transport capability, or had we decided that would happen at a latter point, >>> or that changes are entirely unneeded >> >> We definitely need more changes in the RDMA transport, but I would like to >> have it done later (unless someone other than me starts doing it earlier ;) ). > > OK, thanks for clearing that up. It makes sense to keep the scope of this socket > patch set narrow, but I don't want the RDMA pieces to get lost. The more we let > the RDMA and socket transport capabilities differ, the harder it will be to support > RDMA in the long run. OK, but I may have problems with the IB hardware. If you can advise me the way to test the RDMA without it, it would be very helpful. > Anyway, Bruce, I have no objection to the latest version of this socket patch set, fwiw. > >>> (are namespaces already supported in the IB stack)? >> >> Nope. And this makes RDMA netnsization even more harder :( >