[14:01:57] *** Quits: lhodev (~lhodev@66-90-218-190.dyn.grandenetworks.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) [14:04:11] *** Joins: lhodev (~lhodev@inet-hqmc06-o.oracle.com) [15:01:08] *** Joins: travis-ci (~travis-ci@ec2-54-196-105-230.compute-1.amazonaws.com) [15:01:09] (spdk/master) env_dpdk: always use legacy memory management (Darek Stojaczyk) [15:01:09] Diff URL: https://github.com/spdk/spdk/compare/9bb97528819c...7a6c69283a8a [15:01:09] *** Parts: travis-ci (~travis-ci@ec2-54-196-105-230.compute-1.amazonaws.com) () [15:18:28] *** Joins: travis-ci (~travis-ci@ec2-54-197-72-252.compute-1.amazonaws.com) [15:18:29] (spdk/master) test: exercise crypto rpc calls (paul luse) [15:18:29] Diff URL: https://github.com/spdk/spdk/compare/7a6c69283a8a...cafd537c7d5f [15:18:29] *** Parts: travis-ci (~travis-ci@ec2-54-197-72-252.compute-1.amazonaws.com) () [15:49:03] sethhowe: ping [15:52:39] Hey jimharris: during last night's call you mentioned the 30-day review period underway for the TCP transport. I've a question about that. [15:52:48] sure [15:53:41] What exactly happens after 30 days? That is, barring any show-stoppers, is the spec released and then any comments from the 30-day review appears in a separate errata doc? [15:54:25] i think after 30 day review there's an NVMe board review [15:54:36] jimharris: ping [15:54:41] and then it's published [15:55:51] I don't know exactly what's involved with a "board review". Can that be a lengthy process thus delaying the publication of the spec (and, as it would follow) a public demo of the SPDK code supporting the transport? [15:55:53] sethhowe: never mind - was going to ask you to break up the big vm_setup parallelization patch but i reviewed it as is [15:56:03] i'm not sure exactly [15:56:33] I have "interested parties" asking me, hence my question. [15:56:47] let me find out and get back to you [15:57:05] jimharris: Yeah, it looks a lot bigger than it is. I don't know if there is a way to force the diff tool to recognize that I didn't actually touch most of the lines. . . [15:57:14] it's fine [15:57:38] I appreciate that. And, related, after 30-days, can the SPDK TCP work be shared? Or, must that too wait until after the board review and publication? [15:57:40] i think you had to change the indenting to put it in the functions - so that makes all of the lines look like they've changed [16:12:31] sethhowe: ping [16:20:44] sethhowe: I checked out your latest patches for the shared lib work (426129, 426131). After building, I inspected the objects and something appears off (to me). [16:50:57] jimharris: I noticed removal of the Chandler vote, and apparent re-queue to test of Pawel's 426364. Is the failure that previously occurred understood? I was peering through that build.log a little earlier today. [16:53:45] lhodev: i'm not exactly sure - i've marked it as a latent failure (unfortunately we can only do those markings from within the intel firewall) [17:37:40] *** Quits: lhodev (~lhodev@inet-hqmc06-o.oracle.com) (Remote host closed the connection) [17:38:16] *** Joins: lhodev (~lhodev@66-90-218-190.dyn.grandenetworks.net)