> From: Roland Dreier
>
> Suggested by scripts/coccinelle/api/memdup_user.cocci.
>
> Reported-by: Fengguang Wu
> Signed-off-by: Roland Dreier
Acked-by: Sean Hefty
> ---
> drivers/infiniband/core/ucma.c | 19 +++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff
From: Roland Dreier
Suggested by scripts/coccinelle/api/memdup_user.cocci.
Reported-by: Fengguang Wu
Signed-off-by: Roland Dreier
---
drivers/infiniband/core/ucma.c | 19 +++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/ucma.c b/driv
From: Roland Dreier
It looks like one check was accidentally duplicated, and the other 3
checks were left out. This was detected by
scripts/coccinelle/tests/doubletest.cocci:
drivers/infiniband/hw/ocrdma/ocrdma_verbs.c:895:6-54: duplicated argument
to && or ||
Reported-by: Fengguang Wu
The only way to get an RNR-NAK when doing an RDMA WRITE operation is if the
RDMA WRITE includes immediate data. If Ira is not using immediate data,
then the cause of the local error cannot be due to an excessive number of
RNR-NAKs.
In any event though, Roland points out that the verbs can disting
In general this is correct. This question came up recently in an entirely
different context (it happened to be RoCE), but the failure was strikingly
similar. For those interested, here's the view from the IB spec
perspective.
==
First, I have gotten pulled into another project so I have not been able to
debug this further.
I __really__ appreciate all the responses and will report back when I have
found more information.
Thanks!
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 19:33:18 +0200
Albert Strasheim wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2
Hello
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Paul Grun wrote:
> Ira, are you by any chance sending immediate data with your RDMA Write?
Out of curiosity, what would be the significance if the answer to this
question was yes?
Regards
Albert
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Paul Grun wrote:
> Note that both an "RNR-NAK retry count exceeded" and a "timeout" error are
> reported in the same way, as a locally detected error.
Not quite right. There are two different work completion statuses:
IBV_WC_RETRY_EXC_ERR
IBV_WC_
