On Thursday 06 May 2010 01:56, Roland Dreier wrote:
In my original implementation, the low-level driver was responsible for
generating
the events for all the processes. To move this mechanism to the core
would require
a fairly extensive re-write. I would need to introduce ib_core
On Monday 10 May 2010 13:01, Jack Morgenstein wrote:
I have an initial implementation of this which I will clean up and send you
for review (actually, an
implementation which has the ib_create_xrc_rcv_qp/ib_destroy_xrc_rcv_qp, and
which does
not need the low-level driver implementations of
@vger.kernel.org; Tziporet Koren;
jsquy...@cisco.com; pa...@cse.ohio-state.edu; Ishai Rabinovitz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ib_core: implement XRC RCV qp's
Dr. Panda, Jeff, and Ishai,
We are trying to get XRC integrated into the next mainstream kernel.
For the kernel submission, I added a destroy_xrc_rcv_qp
Dr. Panda, Jeff, and Ishai,
We are trying to get XRC integrated into the next mainstream kernel.
For the kernel submission, I added a destroy_xrc_rcv_qp method (to be
used if the application did not require persistence of the xrc_rcv qp
after the creating process terminated -- per Diego
Hi Jack,
Thanks for your note and the suggested changes. I will discuss this with
my team members and get back to you with our thoughts next week.
Thanks,
DK
On Sat, 8 May 2010, Jack Morgenstein wrote:
Dr. Panda, Jeff, and Ishai,
We are trying to get XRC integrated into the next mainstream
On Thursday 22 April 2010 21:03, Roland Dreier wrote:
So I'm looking at merging this, and I'm wondering about one thing.
Seems like it's just a mistake but I want to make sure I understand
properly:
@@ -1078,6 +1079,7 @@ ssize_t ib_uverbs_create_qp(struct ib_uverbs_file
*file,
Note that for users who do not wish to utilize the reg/unreg verbs,
a destroy_xrc_rcv_qp verb is also provided. Thus, usage is:
Either: create/destroy_xrc_rcv_qp
Or: create/reg/unreg_xrc_rcv_qp (the unreg is used in place of destroy)
I don't really understand the semantics here. What
So I'm looking at merging this, and I'm wondering about one thing.
Seems like it's just a mistake but I want to make sure I understand
properly:
@@ -1078,6 +1079,7 @@ ssize_t ib_uverbs_create_qp(struct ib_uverbs_file
*file,
goto err_put;
}
+attr.create_flags
