On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 03:35:58PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Hefty, Sean <sean.he...@intel.com> wrote: > > The intent is for immediate data only to be provided on receive > > work completions. ?The IBTA will clarify the spec on this. ?I'll > > submit patches that remove setting the wc flag, which may help > > avoid this confusion some. > > The unfortunate thing is that we never defined enum values like > > IBV_WC_RDMA_WRITE_WITH_IMM > > to go along with > > IBV_WR_RDMA_WRITE_WITH_IMM > > If there was a good reason for that, I've long since forgotten it.
Do you think there is a need to have a WC discern if there was an attached immediate data? There is no resource attached to the immediate data that needs special handling. That is about the only argument I can see for continuing to set the IBV_WC_WITH_IMM flag on the WC. All I think is really needed here is a firm note someplace that imm_data is only valid if IBV_WC_RECV is set, while IBV_WC_WITH_IMM is set based on the opcode. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
