From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 0/3] Support out of order data placement Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:12:11 -0600 Message-ID: <20170719171211.GB25714@obsidianresearch.com> References: <6747e257-67b0-a364-be21-04f73ef82ffe@talpey.com> <475e1873-e842-ecb9-d260-34777da57e51@talpey.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: Parav Pandit Cc: Tom Talpey , Bart Van Assche , "leon-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Idan Burstein List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:33:52AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > It does guarantee that writes don't bypass writes and reads don't bypass reads (Table 79), and transport operations are executed in their *message* order (C9-28): > "A responder shall execute SEND requests, RDMA WRITE requests > and ATOMIC Operation requests in the message order in which > they are received." At a minimum, you need to include a version of table 79 in your documentation that reflects the modified WR ordering rules for this mode, and I'm not sure we should continue to call this thing a 'RC QP' at all to avoid so much confusion. Particularly since this new thing is not really wire interoperable with the existing RC QP I don't think it should be the same thing in the API. I recommend you rework this patch series to introduce a relaxed RC QP type instead of using a flag.. 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