On 6/3/2013 6:30 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote:
enum verbs_context_mask {
VERBS_CONTEXT_XRCD = 1 << 0,
- VERBS_CONTEXT_RESERVED = 1 << 1
+ VERBS_CONTEXT_SRQ = 1 << 1,
+ VERBS_CONTEXT_RESERVED = 1 << 2
};
Would VERBS_CONTEXT_XSRQ or VERBS_CONTEXT_SRQ_EX be mor
> > enum verbs_context_mask {
> > VERBS_CONTEXT_XRCD = 1 << 0,
> > - VERBS_CONTEXT_RESERVED = 1 << 1
> > + VERBS_CONTEXT_SRQ = 1 << 1,
> > + VERBS_CONTEXT_RESERVED = 1 << 2
> > };
>
> Would VERBS_CONTEXT_XSRQ or VERBS_CONTEXT_SRQ_EX be more clear?
The structure being ex
On 3/26/2013 4:14 PM, sean.he...@intel.com wrote:
From: Sean Hefty
XRC support requires the use of a new type of SRQ.
XRC shared receive queues: xrc srq's are similar to normal
srq's, except that they are bound to an xrcd, rather
than to a protection domain. Based on the current spec
and impl
From: Sean Hefty
XRC support requires the use of a new type of SRQ.
XRC shared receive queues: xrc srq's are similar to normal
srq's, except that they are bound to an xrcd, rather
than to a protection domain. Based on the current spec
and implementation, they are only usable with xrc qps. To
s
