From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: Send with immediate data completion Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:51:03 -0700 Message-ID: <20120112005103.GC31021@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A82373256758E5@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A823732567591B@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Roland Dreier Cc: "Hefty, Sean" , "Atchley, Scott" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 03:35:58PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote: > > The intent is for immediate data only to be provided on receive > > work completions. ?The IBTA will clarify the spec on this. ?I'll > > submit patches that remove setting the wc flag, which may help > > avoid this confusion some. > > The unfortunate thing is that we never defined enum values like > > IBV_WC_RDMA_WRITE_WITH_IMM > > to go along with > > IBV_WR_RDMA_WRITE_WITH_IMM > > If there was a good reason for that, I've long since forgotten it. Do you think there is a need to have a WC discern if there was an attached immediate data? There is no resource attached to the immediate data that needs special handling. That is about the only argument I can see for continuing to set the IBV_WC_WITH_IMM flag on the WC. All I think is really needed here is a firm note someplace that imm_data is only valid if IBV_WC_RECV is set, while IBV_WC_WITH_IMM is set based on the opcode. 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