[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <770ae898-346c-5932-04cb-68abd73b2625@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 09:36:22 -0700
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>
To: Håkon Bugge <haakon.bugge@...cle.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
OFED mailing list <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
rds-devel@....oracle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rds: Fix inaccurate accounting of unsignaled wrs
On 10/24/2017 9:15 AM, Håkon Bugge wrote:
>
>> On 24 Oct 2017, at 18:05, Santosh Shilimkar
>> <santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com <mailto:santosh.shilimkar@...cle.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
[...]
>> Instead of partially doing changes inside/outside helper,
>> can also add inline helper for solicited state like
>> rds_ib_set_wr_solicited_state() and use that along
>> with this change.
>
> Why? There is no book-keeping associated with setting send-solicited.
> Its set on the last fragment of a message and on the last fragment sent
> before throttling due to flow-control.
>
> Creating a function to perform:
>
> FOO |= BAR;
>
> seems like an overkill to me.
>
Its just inline helper and keep code consistent for flag
manipulation. Compiler output will be like "FOO =| BAR;" :-)
> That being said, in my opinion the fragments of a (large) send should be
> scattered with send-solicited. But that is another commit. But with such
> a commit, I agree with you, a helper function is required.
>
We already talked about it so lets leave it there.
Regards,
Santosh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists