[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c1bcd5cc-381d-2d94-1278-f9fb5c9c0b14@grimberg.me>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:39:09 +0200
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To: Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
Cc: "jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"leonro@...lanox.com" <leonro@...lanox.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/core: reduce IB_POLL_BATCH constant
>> The only reason why I added this array on-stack was to allow consumers
>> that did not use ib_alloc_cq api to call it, but that seems like a
>> wrong decision when thinking it over again (as probably these users
>> did not set the wr_cqe correctly).
>>
>> How about we make ib_process_cq_direct use the cq wc array and add
>> a WARN_ON statement (and fail it gracefully) if the caller used this
>> API without calling ib_alloc_cq?
>
> but we tried to avoid cuncurrent access to cq->wc.
Not sure its a valid use-case. But if there is a compelling
reason to keep it as is, then we can do smaller on-stack
array.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists