From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/core: Don't drain the receive queue for srq attached queue-pair Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:06:16 -0400 Message-ID: <571FCA38.5040106@redhat.com> References: <1461682538-19647-1-git-send-email-sagi@grimberg.me> <571F8D48.4020503@sandisk.com> <571FBD4B.2030102@grimberg.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8h0Aam5sIJsuSNHXqEgDtwqeNFoNLAKam" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <571FBD4B.2030102-NQWnxTmZq1alnMjI0IkVqw@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sagi Grimberg , Bart Van Assche , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: Steve Wise , Christoph Hellwig List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --8h0Aam5sIJsuSNHXqEgDtwqeNFoNLAKam Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="caMP5oDQopF0usQGh19Kv8fmMXMhFHTIt" From: Doug Ledford To: Sagi Grimberg , Bart Van Assche , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: Steve Wise , Christoph Hellwig Message-ID: <571FCA38.5040106-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/core: Don't drain the receive queue for srq attached queue-pair References: <1461682538-19647-1-git-send-email-sagi-NQWnxTmZq1alnMjI0IkVqw@public.gmane.org> <571F8D48.4020503-XdAiOPVOjttBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> <571FBD4B.2030102-NQWnxTmZq1alnMjI0IkVqw@public.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <571FBD4B.2030102-NQWnxTmZq1alnMjI0IkVqw@public.gmane.org> --caMP5oDQopF0usQGh19Kv8fmMXMhFHTIt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 4/26/2016 3:11 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: >=20 >>> SRQ attached QPs will fail receive work posts does not >>> have a receive queue that needs to be drained, the receive >>> queue is shared. >> >> The patch itself looks fine to me but the description of this patch is= >> very confusing. >=20 > Sorry for the poor change log :) I was in a hurry (just now got back) > and quickly wrote description and sent out the patch without giving the= > phrasing any thought. >=20 >> How about explaining that either an SRQ or an RQ is >> attached to a QP and hence that if an SRQ has been attached that there= >> is no RQ attached and hence that it should not be drained? >=20 > I'll send out a better description, thanks. I already picked the patch up and reworded the description myself. See if you are happy with it. If not, I'll reword it again before sending a pull request. --caMP5oDQopF0usQGh19Kv8fmMXMhFHTIt-- --8h0Aam5sIJsuSNHXqEgDtwqeNFoNLAKam Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXH8o4AAoJELgmozMOVy/dH8sP/izQJCA4dWVH5UFLOg72X5+N 6iz1iVhjpa4C19jS5IdFS5WV0Zc+5VjPm4VJk1FSbQxNJ72+kjz7YGN6530J8JmU 1u1ZtcyrshPCFE9Dy3zKhTwxmfnspC93OJhTHcA7jbd7A6pMdkAQcMVzSZ825RUe LMztCe+z3CwpTLFj0KXX4fVUbx/eloVAgri0b6CUSdKPIsFbNg3sEghwRAOXewBD JexPYZAznG1/nMr+AAQbjQwJXyl753775IayxLCAq3oHpk9Lg0+gnLLpdAO8Vsy+ S0Vdn4y5eNcKYlMHk8uwDb1vTIz2E2sActqo3HZXZdbZhiRodhLWrkdWBZ7qr4Km P0oY+XOUTSeZP3+svfJh3LEcMDaGr28prCyr0e+Dm/ionyr2GgVFshKOdMEvOOWC AOOs2jE9WcjUkekTfjWIAO+2gN/O4GSdqSHeAna2DeR2AsK59WPMhXaWMcdkwx4S oVp2ECJeJ2Pyitu1+Sf/9fP0LkqZT9QJpQ0pO+FOmXsQZT1+wXXlwKduUhITgLv4 dfN4nXaJM2GW1UrRePxAuizAduQXEjo8/Nny9Vkcg6mYx3bizoWA4LuOKQNGcm84 19cbArihq9rsNqqkHUiEc5k8TYdFydwunn5d16UB661Ubt9L7le0bqUdoModtdp7 jHW7SBGHNAul6ouRH+9x =7QRs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8h0Aam5sIJsuSNHXqEgDtwqeNFoNLAKam-- -- 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