From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAE9C43463 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 02:44:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220F7208DB for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 02:44:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726119AbgISCoQ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2020 22:44:16 -0400 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.189]:3524 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726054AbgISCoQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Sep 2020 22:44:16 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 553 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Fri, 18 Sep 2020 22:44:16 EDT Received: from DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.55]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1648FD54E2FB4E7C32D9; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 10:44:15 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggema753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.195) by DGGEMM406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.214) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 10:44:14 +0800 Received: from dggema753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.195) by dggema753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.195) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 10:44:14 +0800 Received: from dggema753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.9.48.84]) by dggema753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.9.48.84]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Sat, 19 Sep 2020 10:44:14 +0800 From: liweihang To: Jason Gunthorpe CC: "dledford@redhat.com" , "leon@kernel.org" , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , Linuxarm Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 for-next 3/9] RDMA/hns: Add interception for resizing SRQs Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 for-next 3/9] RDMA/hns: Add interception for resizing SRQs Thread-Index: AQHWhod1LVcLhlG62U6x/yzB7/vStQ== Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 02:44:14 +0000 Message-ID: <3fd98486f7c440bb92b67e15e65ddd07@huawei.com> References: <1599641854-23160-1-git-send-email-liweihang@huawei.com> <1599641854-23160-4-git-send-email-liweihang@huawei.com> <20200918140609.GA305039@nvidia.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.67.100.165] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 2020/9/18 22:06, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 04:57:28PM +0800, Weihang Li wrote: >> From: Yangyang Li >> >> HIP08 doesn't support modifying the maximum number of outstanding WR in an >> SRQ. However, the driver does not return a failure message, and users may >> mistakenly think that the resizing is executed successfully. So the driver >> needs to intercept this operation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yangyang Li >> Signed-off-by: Weihang Li >> --- >> drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c | 4 ++++ >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > Missing fixes line? > > Jason > I see. I thought the fixes tag was not required when we add a check like that in this patch. I will add one, thank you. Weihang