On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Yishai Hadas
wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 7:49 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
>
>> If there is stateless WQ being used by multiple QPs in multiplexed
>
>
> The WQ is not stateless and always has its own PD.
>
>> way, it should be able to multiplex
On 10/15/2015 11:50 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
Hi Yishai,
+/**
+ * ib_create_wq - Creates a WQ associated with the specified protection
+ * domain.
+ * @pd: The protection domain associated with the WQ.
+ * @wq_init_attr: A list of initial attributes required to create the
+ * WQ. If WQ creation
Hi All,
Will it be a good idea to have ha separate header for this feature.
Lets not append to ib_verbs.h?
-Regards
Devesh
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Yishai Hadas
> wrote:
>> On
On 10/15/2015 7:49 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
If there is stateless WQ being used by multiple QPs in multiplexed
The WQ is not stateless and always has its own PD.
way, it should be able to multiplex between QP's of different PD as
well.
Otherwise for every PD being created, there will have be
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Yishai Hadas
wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 12:13 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>
>> Just curious, why does WQ need to be bind to PD?
>> Isn't ucontext sufficient?
>> Or because kcontext doesn't exist, PD serves that role?
>> Or Is this just
On 10/15/2015 12:13 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
Just curious, why does WQ need to be bind to PD?
Isn't ucontext sufficient?
Or because kcontext doesn't exist, PD serves that role?
Or Is this just manifestation of how hardware behave?
PD is an attribute of a work queue (i.e. send/receive queue),
On 10/15/2015 6:17 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Yishai Hadas
wrote:
On 10/15/2015 12:13 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
Just curious, why does WQ need to be bind to PD?
Isn't ucontext sufficient?
Or because kcontext doesn't exist, PD serves
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Yishai Hadas
wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 6:17 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Yishai Hadas
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/15/2015 12:13 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
Just curious,