Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from smtp.opengridcomputing.com ([72.48.136.20]:33671 "EHLO smtp.opengridcomputing.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751908AbaFBRGh (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 13:06:37 -0400 From: "Steve Wise" To: "'J. Bruce Fields'" Cc: "'Devesh Sharma'" , , , References: <20140529165532.16349.95248.stgit@build.ogc.int> <000001cf7c07$72e613d0$58b23b70$@opengridcomputing.com> <004101cf7e82$68b58ad0$3a20a070$@opengridcomputing.com> <20140602165151.GA20031@fieldses.org> <004901cf7e83$15107790$3f3166b0$@opengridcomputing.com> <20140602165716.GB20031@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20140602165716.GB20031@fieldses.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH V3] svcrdma: refactor marshalling logic Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 12:06:39 -0500 Message-ID: <004b01cf7e85$04c6c7c0$0e545740$@opengridcomputing.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:52:47AM -0500, Steve Wise wrote: > > > > You're correct. And this bug appears to be in the current upstream code as well. If > > an > > > > IB_WR_LOCAL_INV wr is used, it must include IB_SEND_FENCE to fence it until the prior > > > read > > > > completes. > > > > > > > > Good catch! I'll post V4 soon. > > > > > > Any chance that can be handled as a separate patch rather than folded > > > in? > > > > > > (Disclaimer: I've been following the discussion only very > > > superficially.) > > > > > > > Sure. I'll post the patch soon. > > Thanks, and, again, I'm not terribly happy about the monster > patch--anything you can split off it is great, even if that thing's > small. As long as all the intermediate stages still build and run. > I don't see any way to do this for this particular patch. It rewrites the entire rdma read logic. > (And any bugs you've identified in upstream code are good candidates for > separate patches, hopefully preceding the rewrite. That also allows us > to apply those fixes to stable kernels if appropriate.) > If I do this, then I'd have to respin the refactor patch. I really would like to get this merged as-is (with the one change I'm sending soon), and move on. I definitely will try and keep the patches smaller and more discrete going forward. Will that work? Steve.