Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] block,md,nvme: correct handling of unsupported P2PDMA transfers

Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-rdma,dev.linux.lists.regressions,org.infradead.lists.linux-nvme,org.kernel.vger.linux-block,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pci,org.kernel.vger.linux-raid,org.kernel.vger.stable
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 7/23/26 22:41, Mykola Marzhan wrote:
> md treats an unsupported P2PDMA transfer to a member as success, and
> nvme-rdma retries one forever.  Whether peer memory can be DMA-mapped
> depends on the PCIe topology between the two devices, and since v6.17
> the failure completes as BLK_STS_INVAL: retryable for multipath and
> deliberately ignored by md for member failures, so mirrors silently
> diverge.
> [...]
> Routing: patch 1 block, 2-8 md, 9-10 nvme; 7, 8 and 10 use the new
> status.  Patch 1 alone stops the divergence and the dm-multipath
> requeue loop; the nvme-rdma loop also needs 9-10; everything else
> refines the fallout, so the series bisects safely.  The md patches
> fix a v7.2-rc1 regression (02666132403a), except 3 (older bug,
> stable) and 5 (refactor).
This landed on my radar due to the word "regression" here. Given the
complexity of this patch-set and that we are at v5 please allow me to ask:

Should 02666132403aec ("md: propagate BLK_FEAT_PCI_P2PDMA from member
devices to RAID device") [v7.2-rc1] maybe be removed for now and
reapplied later once this was sorted out? Or is that for some reason
unneeded? Note, no need for a long explanation needed in the latter
case, a brief statement from long-term developer will suffice.

Ciao, Thorsten
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.