On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 11:37 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> I don't know about your tree, but this is the copy used by ofed 1.3 -
> see the need_lock param, usage of MAX_SEND_CQE + 1, etc. The call to
> skb_orphan() was moved in a different patch (the unsig udqp), etc.
>
My tree is actually the "
Eli Cohen wrote:
OK, so we start a review here, good! I see now (that you made a day later a v1 post for
this patch @ http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2008-March/048381.html fixing
some receive size calculations, and that some variations plus fixes exist in the copy and
related p
On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 10:13 +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Roland Dreier wrote:
> > > what about this patch:
> > > http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2008-March/048322.html
> >
> > Looks mostly OK, I plan to merge it.
>
> Hi Eli,
>
> OK, so we start a review here, good! I see now (that
Roland Dreier wrote:
> what about this patch:
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2008-March/048322.html
Looks mostly OK, I plan to merge it.
Hi Eli,
OK, so we start a review here, good! I see now (that you made a day later a v1 post for
this patch @ http://lists.openfabrics.o
