For iWARP connections, the connect request is TCP payload an on already
established TCP connection. So the connection request is transmitted
and acked at the TCP level by the time the connect request gets dropped
in the ucma. The end result is the connection gets rejected by the
iWARP provider.
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 15:55 -0400, David Dillow wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 20:33 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > Implements SRP_CRED_REQ, which is an information unit defined in the SRP
> > (draft) standard and that allows an SRP target to inform an SRP initiator
> > that
> > more requests m
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 20:33 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Implements SRP_CRED_REQ, which is an information unit defined in the SRP
> (draft) standard and that allows an SRP target to inform an SRP initiator that
> more requests may be sent by the initiator. Adds declarations for the
> SRP_CRED_RE
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 12:14 -0700, Hefty, Sean wrote:
> > I know there is a bug with "ib_send_bw -b" (bi-directional)
> > since it doesn't create a CQ that is large enough for all the
> > posted sends *and* receives. I have tried several times to get the
> > following patch applied but I never got
> I know there is a bug with "ib_send_bw -b" (bi-directional)
> since it doesn't create a CQ that is large enough for all the
> posted sends *and* receives. I have tried several times to get the
> following patch applied but I never got a reply and nothing was
> done.
Who's the maintainer of thes
I know there is a bug with "ib_send_bw -b" (bi-directional)
since it doesn't create a CQ that is large enough for all the
posted sends *and* receives. I have tried several times to get the
following patch applied but I never got a reply and nothing was
done.
diff --git a/send_bw.c b/send_bw.c
ind
Hi,
If I run ib_send_bw with the -a option, we seem to be getting CQ overrun
errors.
Server :
[r...@dscbad01 ~]# ib_send_bw
--
Send BW Test
Connection type : RC
Inline data is used up to 1 bytes message
local
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 20:33 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> @@ -820,9 +820,11 @@ static int srp_post_recv(struct srp_target_port *target)
> unsigned int next;
> int ret;
>
> + BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2(SRP_RQ_MASK + 1);
> +
Please put this together with the other build bug in t
On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 09:55 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:44 PM, David Dillow wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 17:26 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> > > I'm not sure it is a good idea to allow that all transmit buffers get
> > > allocated for sending CMD_
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:53:20 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:43:46 -0700 Andrew Morton
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Guys. What's goin' on out there?
> >
> > I guess we are all so up to date that noone does 32 bit builds
10 matches
Mail list logo
