netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/4] infiniband: hns: add Hisilicon RoCE support(driver code)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAG53R5WnJvqTO9=V15gMeN9vbOeP9Gv2JOWb11AEk+pnHjktsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 19 Mar 2016 19:54:57 +0530
From:	Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@...il.com>
To:	oulijun <oulijun@...wei.com>
Cc:	"Wei Hu(Xavier)" <xavier.huwei@...wei.com>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	"Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, jiri@...lanox.com,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	gongyangming@...wei.com, xiaokun@...wei.com,
	tangchaofei@...wei.com, haifeng.wei@...wei.com,
	yisen.zhuang@...wei.com, yankejian@...wei.com,
	lisheng011@...wei.com, charles.chenxin@...wei.com,
	linuxarm@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] infiniband: hns: add Hisilicon RoCE support(driver code)

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:58 PM, oulijun <oulijun@...wei.com> wrote:
> On 2016/3/15 2:20, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since SRQ is not supported in this driver version, can you keep
>>>> remaining code base also to not bother about SRQ specifically
>>>> poll_cq_one, modify_qp, destroy_qp etc?
>>>> SRQ support can come as complete additional patch along with cmd_mask,
>>>> callbacks and rest of the code.
>>>>
>>>> .
>>> Sorry, I see your review in time.
>>> Sure, SRQ is not supported in current roce driver. I have verified the function
>>> for RDMA. It is not influence. For your question, we need to analyse it scientific.
>>> after that, i will reply your doubt, is that ok?
>>
>> Yes. No problem.
>>
>> .
>>
> Hi, Parav Pandit
>     I have analyse and discuss with your reviewing. I considered that the srq is only the
> condition branch in verbs and without independent function, so reserved it.I have delete the relative
> function with srq independently.
>     if delete the branch operation with srq, it feel be inconvenient to understand
>

o.k. If I understand correctly, new patch will be without srq functionality.
If thats the case, that makes review and maintainability easier.
Thanks.
Parav