Hi Vasiliy, sorry for the late reply! I was ill last week.
The main difference so far is that my patches are much easier to understand as I don't provide back-porting and also don't put performance improvements in between the stability fixes. I provide full test cases + scripts which makes it simple to check if you've got the expected/same behavior. Everything is straight forward and completely described in the commit messages. My work focuses on using ib_srp without the srp_tools. Just fast IO failing + reconnect. No performance improvements. We gradually find compromises to get a cool solution. We've e.g. agreed on detecting connection loss upon the QP timeout only. Today I'll release our own automatic reconnect. Sorry Bart, but a reconnect with just the commit message "IB/srp: Add kernel-level transport layer recovery" and no further description isn't very trustworthy for me. I also wonder why you need so much locking. Cheers, Sebastian On 03.05.2013 14:27, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote: > > 03.05.2013 15:45 пользователь "Bart Van Assche" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> написал: >> >> On 04/30/13 09:34, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote: >>> >>> What is main difference between bvanassche repo and sriemer ? >> >> >> Good question. As soon as I have the time I will try to find a single > approach that works for everyone and post a new patch series for review > on the linux-rdma mailing list such that these can be included in the > mainline kernel. >> >> Bart. > > Thats very good! Thans! I'm already using 3.8 with you patches and all > works very stable. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
