Do you think it makes sense to propagate the fix to 2.0 branch? Thanks, Alex.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Leonid Keller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 5:27 AM > To: Alex Estrin > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ofw][mlx4] SRQ attached QP issue > > Right. > Returned to your variant. > Fixed in 1627, thank you. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alex Estrin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:01 PM > > To: Leonid Keller > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [ofw][mlx4] SRQ attached QP issue > > > > Hello, > > > > Your version of the patch won't work because for the SRQ case > > this will always be 'TRUE': > > > - if (!qp->sq.wrid || !qp->rq.wrid) { > > > - err = -ENOMEM; > > > - goto err_wrid; > > > > Thanks, > > Alex. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Leonid Keller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 11:13 AM > > > To: Alex Estrin > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: [ofw][mlx4] SRQ attached QP issue > > > > > > Applied with some changes in 1625, thank you. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Alex Estrin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 1:20 AM > > > > To: Leonid Keller > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > Subject: [ofw][mlx4] SRQ attached QP issue > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > This patch seem fixed the create-QP-attached-to-SRQ issue. > > > > I didn't verify though, if code allowes send queue zero size. > > > > Included check anyway. > > > > Please review. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alex. > > > > > > > > Index: mlx4/kernel/bus/ib/qp.c > > > > > > =================================================================== > > > > --- mlx4/kernel/bus/ib/qp.c (revision 1622) > > > > +++ mlx4/kernel/bus/ib/qp.c (working copy) > > > > @@ -411,14 +411,20 @@ > > > > err = mlx4_buf_write_mtt(dev->dev, > &qp->mtt, &qp->buf); > > > > if (err) > > > > goto err_mtt; > > > > - > > > > - qp->sq.wrid = kmalloc(qp->sq.wqe_cnt * > sizeof (u64), > > > > GFP_KERNEL); > > > > - qp->rq.wrid = kmalloc(qp->rq.wqe_cnt * > sizeof (u64), > > > > GFP_KERNEL); > > > > - > > > > - if (!qp->sq.wrid || !qp->rq.wrid) { > > > > - err = -ENOMEM; > > > > - goto err_wrid; > > > > + if (qp->sq.wqe_cnt) { > > > > + qp->sq.wrid = > kmalloc(qp->sq.wqe_cnt * sizeof > > > > (u64), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + if (!qp->sq.wrid) { > > > > + err = -ENOMEM; > > > > + goto err_wrid; > > > > + } > > > > } > > > > + if (qp->rq.wqe_cnt) { > > > > + qp->rq.wrid = > kmalloc(qp->rq.wqe_cnt * sizeof > > > > (u64), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + if (!qp->rq.wrid) { > > > > + err = -ENOMEM; > > > > + goto err_wrid; > > > > + } > > > > + } > > > > } > > > > > > > > if (!sqpn) > > > > @@ -452,8 +458,10 @@ > > > > > mlx4_ib_db_unmap_user(to_mucontext(pd->p_uctx), > > > > &qp->db); > > > > } else { > > > > - kfree(qp->sq.wrid); > > > > - kfree(qp->rq.wrid); > > > > + if (qp->sq.wrid) > > > > + kfree(qp->sq.wrid); > > > > + if (qp->rq.wrid) > > > > + kfree(qp->rq.wrid); > > > > } > > > > > > > > err_mtt: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > It seem there is a controversy exist in mlx4 driver that > > > > won't allow > > > > > to create QP if it was attached to SRQ. > > > > > > > > > > At first it doesn't allow to set any recv queue size > > > (which is fine) > > > > > > > > > > mlx4\kernel\bus\ib\qp.c@ line 219: > > > > > if (cap->max_recv_wr) > > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > > qp->rq.wqe_cnt = qp->rq.max_gs = 0; > > > > > > > > > > But then there is assertion for zero size memory request in > > > > 'kmalloc': > > > > > mlx4\kernel\bus\ib\qp.c @ line 416: > > > > > > > > > > qp->rq.wrid = kmalloc(qp->rq.wqe_cnt * sizeof > > > > (u64), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > > > > > mlx4\kernel\inc\l2w_memory.h @ line 81: > > > > > > > > > > static inline void * kmalloc( SIZE_T bsize, > > > > gfp_t gfp_mask) > > > > > { > > > > > void *ptr; > > > > > ASSERT( KeGetCurrentIrql() <= > > DISPATCH_LEVEL); > > > > > ASSERT(bsize); > > > > > ..... > > > > > > > > > > I believe it was added for a reason. > > > > > Please let me know if I missed anything. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Alex. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ ofw mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw
