[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y2vydHwL3waJeaHw@unreal>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 20:33:24 +0200
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: rama nichanamatlu <rama.nichanamatlu@...cle.com>
Cc: Rohit Nair <rohit.sajan.kumar@...cle.com>, jgg@...pe.ca,
saeedm@...dia.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
manjunath.b.patil@...cle.com,
Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [External] : Re: [PATCH 1/1] IB/mlx5: Add a signature check to
received EQEs and CQEs
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 04:24:48PM -0600, rama nichanamatlu wrote:
> in-line.
<...>
> > The thing is that "vendor" failed to explain internally if this debug
> > code is useful. Like I said, extremely rare debug code shouldn't be part
> > of main data path.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> thank you very much for you insights into the relevance of the patch. before
> we close this topic, do want to ask on this. what is the expectation of the
> nic hardware when it signatures / checksum's an eqe or cqe ?
>
> if it not to be verified by the receiver host for what ever reasons, then
> why even do the checksum computation on the hardware ?
mlx5 data sheet has more than 3000 pages in it. Not everything there is needed now.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists