On 2026/8/21 22:25, Peter Xu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 10:10:40AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
+ switch (wr_id) {
+ case RDMA_WRID_RDMA_WRITE:
+ wr_desc = "RDMA write";
+ break;
+ case RDMA_WRID_SEND_CONTROL:
+ wr_desc = "control send";
+ break;
+ default:
+ wr_desc = "send work request";
+ break;
Do we have other possibility? I thought it should be either WRITE or SEND,
if so, we could g_assert_not_reached().
Some side discussion..
Since we're talking about the wrids, IIUC the whole RDMA wrid space is a
bit messy. E.g. RDMA_WRID_SEND_CONTROL is used without having
RDMA_WRID_CONTROL (2000, rather than 2022) for SEND control messages.
IIUC the two-layered wrid name space is confusing, maybe we can rewrite the
wrid allocation to only use one namespace with very limited wrid
possibilities, selecting rdma->wr_data[] index based on the few
possibilities. My gut feeling is that's much easier to read.
I agree it would be better with using one namespace.
In all cases, this will be a separate discussion, not relevant to this
series alone, but I want to see if I'm the only one got confused by these
two-layered RDMA_WRID_*.
It's true that the two-layered RDMA_WRID_* are not that clear, and I have to
rely on their comments to understand them.
Regards,
Yanfei
Thanks,
