mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Lentini <jlentini@netapp.com>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@gmail.com>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>,
	chuck.lever@oracle.com, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>,
	nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Tom Tucker <tom@opengridcomputing.com>,
	Thomas.Talpey@netapp.com, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@voltaire.com>
Subject: Re: [NFS] Merge plans for RPC/RDMA? (Was: Re: [PATCH 000 of 14] knfsd: Preparation for IPv6 support in NFS server.)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:13:57 -0400 (EDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704161002200.7869@jlentini-linux.nane.netapp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <170fa0d20704142040w204a715bgf5ce772e67126bbd@mail.gmail.com>



On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, Mike Snitzer wrote:

> On 4/13/07, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 16:47 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > I must be missing something because I don't see _any_ trace of the
> > > core RPC over RDMA support (xprtrdma et al), your RPC Transport
> > > Switch, or any of the other supporting changes in mainline.  Could
> > > you, or others, please clarify the plan for merging RPC/RDMA?
> > 
> > That would be a question for the actual RPC/RDMA developers (i.e. James
> > Lentini and Tom Talpey). They haven't submitted any code for review yet.
> 
> The reason I asked is there seems to be a catch-22 going on here if
> (as Chuck indicated) the NetApp engineers are waiting for the
> remaining rpc transport switch patches to be merged.  My naive
> understanding is that those remaining transport switch patches aren't
> _really_ needed without the RPC/RDMA patches.
> 
> Essentially I'm echoing Or Gerlitz's post to openib-general back in December:
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2006-December/029721.html
> 
> If so, it begs the question: why the hold up from the NetApp
> engineers?  In the hopes of getting some insight I've cc'd James
> Lentini and Tom Talpey.
> 
> I'm assuming that all of you obviously want your code merged mainline.
> The thing that is puzzling is the non-traditional release management
> of this RPC/RDMA and NFS/RDMA code.  Aside from the periodic
> announcements of the tarball updates to the sf.net nfs-rdma project;
> I've not found any posting/discussion of associated patches to the
> various mailing lists (nfs, nfsv4, ofa's general, lkml, etc).
> 
> I'm interested in understanding why the reluctance to push for a merge
> now (let alone some months ago) given the various successes that have
> been seen with the NFS/RDMA effort (Sandia, SC '06, as Chuck noted:
> good performance at various test sites).  If the code is holding up
> well why the delay in review and merging?  And rather than wait for
> the remaining transport switch patches; why not look to merge all of
> NFS/RDMA (client) work at the same time?

There is no reluctance to submit the NFS-RDMA code for review. There 
have been several upstream changes to the NFS server recently. We 
(NetApp and Tom Tucker at OGC) are working on a new patchset for 
NFS-RDMA that is compatible with these changes. We are testing the 
code now. 

We will post the patches for review when we finish updating them.

  reply	other threads:[~2007-04-16 14:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-04-13 20:47 Merge plans for RPC/RDMA? (Was: Re: [NFS] " Mike Snitzer
2007-04-13 22:14 ` [NFS] Merge plans for RPC/RDMA? (Was: " Trond Myklebust
2007-04-15  3:40   ` Mike Snitzer
2007-04-16 14:13     ` James Lentini [this message]
2007-04-16 14:48       ` Mike Snitzer
2007-04-13 22:45 ` Merge plans for RPC/RDMA? (Was: Re: [NFS] " Chuck Lever
2007-04-14  0:04   ` Mike Snitzer
2007-04-14  1:07     ` Chuck Lever
2007-04-14  1:14     ` Chuck Lever

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0704161002200.7869@jlentini-linux.nane.netapp.com \
    --to=jlentini@netapp.com \
    --cc=Thomas.Talpey@netapp.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=nfs@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=ogerlitz@voltaire.com \
    --cc=rdreier@cisco.com \
    --cc=snitzer@gmail.com \
    --cc=tom@opengridcomputing.com \
    --cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®