-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Christie [mailto:micha...@cs.wisc.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 10:25 PM
To: Jayamohan Kallickal
Cc: jbottom...@parallels.com; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; Jayamohan Kallickal;
Minh Duc Tran; Sony John-N
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] be2iscsi: relinquishing control after processing 512
CQE
On 03/27/2014 11:39 AM, Jayamohan Kallickal wrote:
> @@ -2323,14 +2319,33 @@ void beiscsi_process_all_cqs(struct
> work_struct *work)
>
> static int be_iopoll(struct blk_iopoll *iop, int budget) {
> - unsigned int ret;
> + unsigned int ret, num_eq_processed;
> struct beiscsi_hba *phba;
> struct be_eq_obj *pbe_eq;
> + struct be_eq_entry *eqe = NULL;
> + struct be_queue_info *eq;
>
> + num_eq_processed = 0;
> pbe_eq = container_of(iop, struct be_eq_obj, iopoll);
> + phba = pbe_eq->phba;
> + eq = &pbe_eq->q;
> + eqe = queue_tail_node(eq);
> +
> + hwi_ring_eq_db(phba, eq->id, 1, num_eq_processed, 0, 1);
>Is this right? num_eq_processed will be 0 above. Should this be moved down
>below to after num_eq_processed has been incremented?
I am unarming the interrupts so that we are not interrupted while in be_iopoll.
So , this is fine
> +
> + while (eqe->dw[offsetof(struct amap_eq_entry, valid) / 32]
> + & EQE_VALID_MASK) {
> +
> + AMAP_SET_BITS(struct amap_eq_entry, valid, eqe, 0);
> + queue_tail_inc(eq);
> + eqe = queue_tail_node(eq);
> + num_eq_processed++;
> + }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
