From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] IB/ipoib: Report SG feature regardless of HW UD CSUM capability Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 13:34:53 -0600 Message-ID: <20160719193453.GA28288@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1468827648-17275-1-git-send-email-yuval.shaia@oracle.com> <20160718171921.GA3193@obsidianresearch.com> <20160719125556.GA14768@yuval-lap.uk.oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160719125556.GA14768-Hxa29pjIrETlQW142y8m19+IiqhCXseY@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Yuval Shaia Cc: linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, sean.hefty-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, hal.rosenstock-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 03:55:57PM +0300, Yuval Shaia wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:19:21AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:40:48AM -0700, Yuval Shaia wrote: > > > Decouple SG support from HW ability to do UD checksum. > > > This coupling is for historical reasons and removed with 'commit > > > ec5f06156423 ("net: Kill link between CSUM and SG features.")' > > > > Shouldn't this also check that the QP's sg limit is something > > appropriate? At least > 1 .. > > What is special with 1? One means the hardware doesn't support SG at all. Is there a reason to sg_linearize down to ipoib if we know the hardware doesn't support SG at all? Presumably it is better to let the netstack deal with that case. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html