Re: [PATCH rdma-next 42/50] RDMA/bnxt_re: Complete CQ resize in a single step

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 01:45:42PM +0530, Selvin Xavier wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2026 at 4:31 PM Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> >
> > There is no need to defer the CQ resize operation, as it is intended to
> > be completed in one pass. The current bnxt_re_resize_cq() implementation
> > does not handle concurrent CQ resize requests, and this will be addressed
> > in the following patches.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c | 33 +++++++++-----------------------
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c
> > index d652018c19b3..2aecfbbb7eaf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/ib_verbs.c
> > @@ -3309,20 +3309,6 @@ int bnxt_re_create_cq(struct ib_cq *ibcq, const struct ib_cq_init_attr *attr,
> >         return rc;
> >  }
> >
> > -static void bnxt_re_resize_cq_complete(struct bnxt_re_cq *cq)
> > -{
> > -       struct bnxt_re_dev *rdev = cq->rdev;
> > -
> > -       bnxt_qplib_resize_cq_complete(&rdev->qplib_res, &cq->qplib_cq);
> > -
> > -       cq->qplib_cq.max_wqe = cq->resize_cqe;
> > -       if (cq->resize_umem) {
> > -               ib_umem_release(cq->ib_cq.umem);
> > -               cq->ib_cq.umem = cq->resize_umem;
> > -               cq->resize_umem = NULL;
> > -               cq->resize_cqe = 0;
> > -       }
> > -}
> >
> >  int bnxt_re_resize_cq(struct ib_cq *ibcq, unsigned int cqe,
> >                       struct ib_udata *udata)
> > @@ -3387,7 +3373,15 @@ int bnxt_re_resize_cq(struct ib_cq *ibcq, unsigned int cqe,
> >                 goto fail;
> >         }
> >
> > -       cq->ib_cq.cqe = cq->resize_cqe;
> > +       bnxt_qplib_resize_cq_complete(&rdev->qplib_res, &cq->qplib_cq);
> > +
> > +       cq->qplib_cq.max_wqe = cq->resize_cqe;
> > +       ib_umem_release(cq->ib_cq.umem);
> > +       cq->ib_cq.umem = cq->resize_umem;
> > +       cq->resize_umem = NULL;
> > +       cq->resize_cqe = 0;
> > +
> > +       cq->ib_cq.cqe = entries;
> >         atomic_inc(&rdev->stats.res.resize_count);
> >
> >         return 0;
> > @@ -3907,15 +3901,6 @@ int bnxt_re_poll_cq(struct ib_cq *ib_cq, int num_entries, struct ib_wc *wc)
> >         struct bnxt_re_sqp_entries *sqp_entry = NULL;
> >         unsigned long flags;
> >
> > -       /* User CQ; the only processing we do is to
> > -        * complete any pending CQ resize operation.
> > -        */
> > -       if (cq->ib_cq.umem) {
> > -               if (cq->resize_umem)
> > -                       bnxt_re_resize_cq_complete(cq);
> > -               return 0;
> > -       }
> > -
> Since this code is removed,  we need to remove  ibv_cmd_poll_cq call
> from the user library.
> For older libraries which still calls ibv_cmd_poll_cq, i think we
> should we keep a check.  Else it will throw a print "POLL CQ : no CQL
> to use". Either we should add the following code or remove this print.
>        if (cq->ib_cq.umem)
>                   return 0;

I'll add the check with extra comment.

> Otherwise, it looks good to me.

Thanks

> 
> Thanks,
> Selvin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >         spin_lock_irqsave(&cq->cq_lock, flags);
> >         budget = min_t(u32, num_entries, cq->max_cql);
> >         num_entries = budget;
> >
> > --
> > 2.52.0
> >