On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 03:23:00PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 08:17:39AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >
> > My thoughts that everything here hints me that state machine and
> > locking are implemented wrongly. In ideal world, the expectation
> > is that REQ message
Hi Jason,
Thanks for taking the time to review!
On 6/17/20 11:24 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:56:53AM -0700, Divya Indi wrote:
>> The other option might be to use GFP_NOWAIT conditionally ie
>> (only use GFP_NOWAIT when GFP_ATOMIC is not specified in gfp_mask else
>>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:56:53AM -0700, Divya Indi wrote:
> The other option might be to use GFP_NOWAIT conditionally ie
> (only use GFP_NOWAIT when GFP_ATOMIC is not specified in gfp_mask else
> use GFP_ATOMIC). Eventual goal being to not have a blocking memory allocation.
This is probably
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 08:17:39AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>
> My thoughts that everything here hints me that state machine and
> locking are implemented wrongly. In ideal world, the expectation
> is that REQ message will have a state in it (PREPARED, SENT, ACK
> e.t.c.) and list
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:56:53AM -0700, Divya Indi wrote:
> Hi Leon,
>
> Please find my comments inline -
>
> On 6/13/20 11:41 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 07:45:21AM -0700, Divya Indi wrote:
> >> Hi Leon,
> >>
> >> Thanks for taking the time to review.
> >>
> >> Please
Hi Leon,
Please find my comments inline -
On 6/13/20 11:41 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 07:45:21AM -0700, Divya Indi wrote:
>> Hi Leon,
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to review.
>>
>> Please find my comments inline -
>>
>> On 6/9/20 12:00 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 07:45:21AM -0700, Divya Indi wrote:
> Hi Leon,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to review.
>
> Please find my comments inline -
>
> On 6/9/20 12:00 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 07:46:16AM -0700, Divya Indi wrote:
> >> Commit 3ebd2fd0d011 ("IB/sa: Put
Hi Leon,
Thanks for taking the time to review.
Please find my comments inline -
On 6/9/20 12:00 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 07:46:16AM -0700, Divya Indi wrote:
>> Commit 3ebd2fd0d011 ("IB/sa: Put netlink request into the request list
>> before sending")'
>> -
>> 1.
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 07:46:16AM -0700, Divya Indi wrote:
> Commit 3ebd2fd0d011 ("IB/sa: Put netlink request into the request list before
> sending")'
> -
> 1. Adds the query to the request list before ib_nl_snd_msg.
> 2. Removes ib_nl_send_msg from within the spinlock which also makes it
>
Commit 3ebd2fd0d011 ("IB/sa: Put netlink request into the request list before
sending")'
-
1. Adds the query to the request list before ib_nl_snd_msg.
2. Removes ib_nl_send_msg from within the spinlock which also makes it
possible to allocate memory with GFP_KERNEL.
However, if there is a delay
10 matches
Mail list logo