On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Eli Cohen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 08:25:51AM -0800, Josh England wrote:
>> Everything has MT264328 ConnectX cards using the mlx4_ib driver.
>> Boot/file servers are using an HP OEM 2.7.000 firmware. Compute nodes
>> have cards using Sun OEM 2.6.200 FW.
>
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 08:25:51AM -0800, Josh England wrote:
> Everything has MT264328 ConnectX cards using the mlx4_ib driver.
> Boot/file servers are using an HP OEM 2.7.000 firmware. Compute nodes
> have cards using Sun OEM 2.6.200 FW.
>
You probably mean MT26428? Anyway, do you still see th
Everything has MT264328 ConnectX cards using the mlx4_ib driver.
Boot/file servers are using an HP OEM 2.7.000 firmware. Compute nodes
have cards using Sun OEM 2.6.200 FW.
-JE
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Eli Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:38:38PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
>>
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:38:38PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
>
> I do worry (as Moni mentioned) that this doesn't explain why you would
> get send failures in this case, but the patch itself is well-explained
> and looks "obviously correct" so I think we should apply it.
It could be a problem i
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 13:52 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > Sorry, I was referring to my patch not Eli's.
>
> Heh, I never would have said anything about your patch was "obvious".
> I skimmed yours once but I do want to read it more carefully.
>
> Did you ever say what test case you are using to
> Sorry, I was referring to my patch not Eli's.
Heh, I never would have said anything about your patch was "obvious".
I skimmed yours once but I do want to read it more carefully.
Did you ever say what test case you are using to provoke the problem you're
fixing?
--
Roland Dreier
For corpora
Sorry, I was referring to my patch not Eli's.
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 13:41 -0800, Ralph Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 13:38 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > good debugging, applied thanks.
> >
> > I do worry (as Moni mentioned) that this doesn't explain why you would
> > get send failures
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 13:38 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> good debugging, applied thanks.
>
> I do worry (as Moni mentioned) that this doesn't explain why you would
> get send failures in this case, but the patch itself is well-explained
> and looks "obviously correct" so I think we should apply i
good debugging, applied thanks.
I do worry (as Moni mentioned) that this doesn't explain why you would
get send failures in this case, but the patch itself is well-explained
and looks "obviously correct" so I think we should apply it.
--
Roland Dreier
For corporate legal information go to:
http
The ipoib UD QP reports send completions to priv->send_cq which is unarmed
generally; it only gets armed when the number of outstanding send requests
(e.g. those for which a completion was not polled yet) reaches the size of the
tx queue. This arming (done using ib_req_notify_cq()) is done only in
10 matches
Mail list logo