From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sagi Grimberg Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] IB: new common API for draining queues Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:00:29 +0200 Message-ID: <56C3014D.3070204@dev.mellanox.co.il> References: <3e7261d1436d33320223d365974ff38945f0d558.1455230646.git.swise@chelsio.com> <56C23DA8.40905@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56C23DA8.40905-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Doug Ledford , Steve Wise , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: bart.vanassche-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > As I mentioned in my comment above, I would have thought that the > attempt to post a send to a QP in ERR state would have returned an > error. It must not or else this patch is worthless because of the order > of actions. What that highlights though, is that this code will drain a > QP, but only if the caller has taken the time to stop all possible > contexts that might run on other cores and post commands to the QP. > Those commands will error out, but the caller must, none the less, take > steps to block other contexts from sending or else this drain is > useless. That might be fine for the API, but it should be clearly > documented, and currently it isn't. I agree, it should be documented that if there are other contexts that post concurrently then the QP drain is not guaranteed. That's a valid requirement I think... -- 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