Re: [openib-general] [PATCH v4 01/13] Linux RDMA Core Changes

2007-01-05 Thread Steve Wise
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:34 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: OK, I'm back from vacation today. Anyway I don't have a definitive statement on this right now. I guess I agree that I don't like having an extra parameter to a function that should be pretty fast (although req notify isn't quite as

RE: [openib-general] [PATCH v4 01/13] Linux RDMA Core Changes

2007-01-05 Thread Felix Marti
] [PATCH v4 01/13] Linux RDMA Core Changes On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:34 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: OK, I'm back from vacation today. Anyway I don't have a definitive statement on this right now. I guess I agree that I don't like having an extra parameter to a function that should

Re: [openib-general] [PATCH v4 01/13] Linux RDMA Core Changes

2007-01-04 Thread Roland Dreier
OK, I'm back from vacation today. Anyway I don't have a definitive statement on this right now. I guess I agree that I don't like having an extra parameter to a function that should be pretty fast (although req notify isn't quite as hot as something like posting a send request or polling a cq),

Re: [openib-general] [PATCH v4 01/13] Linux RDMA Core Changes

2007-01-04 Thread Steve Wise
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:34 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: OK, I'm back from vacation today. Anyway I don't have a definitive statement on this right now. I guess I agree that I don't like having an extra parameter to a function that should be pretty fast (although req notify isn't quite as

Re: [openib-general] [PATCH v4 01/13] Linux RDMA Core Changes

2007-01-03 Thread Steve Wise
So what does this tell you? To me it looks like there's a measurable speed difference, and so we should find a way (e.g. what I proposed) to enable chelsio userspace without adding overhead to other low level drivers or indeed chelsio kernel level code. What do you think?