On 6/3/2020 2:32 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 01:40:51AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
On 6/3/2020 12:37 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 6/2/20 1:09 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:02:55PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 6/2/20 1:01 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 01:40:51AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
> On 6/3/2020 12:37 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 6/2/20 1:09 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:02:55PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > On 6/2/20 1:01 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020
On 6/3/2020 12:37 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 6/2/20 1:09 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:02:55PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 6/2/20 1:01 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:37:26AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
On 6/2/2020 5:56 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
On 6/2/20 1:09 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:02:55PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 6/2/20 1:01 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:37:26AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
On 6/2/2020 5:56 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi,
>
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 01:02:55PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/2/20 1:01 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:37:26AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/2/2020 5:56 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This looks good to me.
> >>
> >> Can
On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:37:26AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
> On 6/2/2020 5:56 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
>
> Hi,
>
> This looks good to me.
>
> Can you share a pointer to the tree so we'll test it in our labs ?
>
> need to re-test:
>
> 1. srq per core
>
> 2. srq per core +
On 6/2/20 1:01 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:37:26AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>>
>> On 6/2/2020 5:56 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This looks good to me.
>>
>> Can you share a pointer to the tree so we'll test it in our labs ?
>>
>> need to re-t
Hi Max,
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:37:26 +0300 Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
> On 6/2/2020 5:56 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> This looks good to me.
>
> Can you share a pointer to the tree so we'll test it in our labs ?
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
you want tag next-
On 6/2/2020 5:56 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
Hi,
This looks good to me.
Can you share a pointer to the tree so we'll test it in our labs ?
need to re-test:
1. srq per core
2. srq per core + T10-PI
And both will run with shared CQ.
Today's linux-next merge of the block tree g
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:45:39AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:58:04 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > drivers/nvme/target/rdma.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 23f96d1f15a
Hi all,
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:58:04 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/nvme/target/rdma.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 23f96d1f15a7 ("nvmet-rdma: Simplify ib_post_(send|recv|srq_recv)() calls")
> 202093848cac ("nvmet-r
11 matches
Mail list logo