On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 01:20:44PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
The warning was unreachable. In the original code, it would print the
line number and the function but I have added an error message.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter dan.carpen...@oracle.com
---
I haven't tested this, hopefully
Hi Roland,
This little patch set removes the current make W=1 build warnings from the IB
core
and the mlx4_ib driver, which would help when we examine new patches to make
sure they
don't add any warnings..
changes from V0:
- returned call to iwcm-destroy_listen which was wrongly removed,
Fix the below make W=1 build warning we have on the mlx4_ib
drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/qp.c: In function ‘mlx4_ib_post_send’:
drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx4/qp.c:2463: warning: comparison of unsigned
expression 0 is always false
Signed-off-by: Or Gerlitz ogerl...@mellanox.com
---
On 31/10/2013 21:28, David Dillow wrote:
We want to know about those comparisons, because they often indicate a
bug -- either in one's thinking, or in the code they've written.
Changing attr.state from unsigned to signed is unlikely to ever happen,
as a massive audit would be needed -- this is
Hello,
I have a little update to the unlucky GRO IPoIB behaviour I observed
in the last weeks in datagram mode on our ConnectX cards. In the
GRO receive path the kernel steps into the inet_gro_receive() function
of net/ipv4/af_inet.c. If I read the code right it compares two
IP packets and
On 11/2/2013 12:06 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 31/10/2013 5:24, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
While T10-DIF clearly defines that over the wire protection guards are
interleaved into the data stream (each 512-Byte block followed by 8-byte
guard), when in memory, the protection guards may reside in a
On 11/2/2013 12:06 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 31/10/2013 5:24, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
While T10-DIF clearly defines that over the wire protection guards are
interleaved into the data stream (each 512-Byte block followed by 8-byte
guard), when in memory, the protection guards may reside in a
On 11/1/2013 5:13 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 31/10/2013 5:24, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
+/**
+ * struct ib_sig_domain - Parameters specific for T10-DIF
+ * domain.
+ * @sig_type: specific signauture type
+ * @sig: union of all signature domain attributes that may
+ * be used to set
On 11/1/2013 7:09 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 31/10/2013 5:24, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
+/**
+ * ib_mr_init_attr - Memory region init attributes passed to routine
+ *ib_create_mr.
+ * @max_reg_descriptors: max number of registration units that
+ * may be used with UMR work requests.
+ *
On 11/2/2013 12:23 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 31/10/2013 5:24, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
+ * @type3_inc_reftag: T10-DIF type 3 does not state
+ *about the reference tag, it is the user
+ *choice to increment it or not.
Can you explain this further ? Does this
On 11/1/2013 8:46 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 31/10/2013 5:24, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
+/**
+ * Signature T10-DIF block-guard types
+ */
+enum ib_t10_dif_bg_type {
+IB_T10DIF_CRC,
+IB_T10DIF_CSUM
+};
In SPC-4 paragraph 4.22.4 I found that the T10-PI guard is the CRC
computed from the
On 11/1/2013 5:05 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 31/10/2013 5:24, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
+static u8 bs_selector(int block_size)
+{
+switch (block_size) {
+case 512:return 0x1;
+case 520:return 0x2;
+case 4096:return 0x3;
+case 4160:return 0x4;
+
On 11/2/2013 11:59 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 2/11/2013 12:21, Or Gerlitz wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Bart Van Assche bvanass...@acm.org
wrote:
On 31/10/2013 5:24, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
This patch implements IB_WR_REG_SIG_MR posted by the user.
Baisically this WR involvs 3
On 03/11/2013 14:16, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
mlx5 currently doesn't support 32-bit platforms, I'll take your
suggestion.
I think 32-bit x86 is supported, but anyway, as we're picking your
suggestion, should be fine.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-rdma in
the
On 3/11/2013 4:15, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 11/1/2013 8:46 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 31/10/2013 5:24, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
+/**
+ * Signature T10-DIF block-guard types
+ */
+enum ib_t10_dif_bg_type {
+IB_T10DIF_CRC,
+IB_T10DIF_CSUM
+};
In SPC-4 paragraph 4.22.4 I found that the
On 11/3/2013 4:41 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 3/11/2013 4:15, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
On 11/1/2013 8:46 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 31/10/2013 5:24, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
+/**
+ * Signature T10-DIF block-guard types
+ */
+enum ib_t10_dif_bg_type {
+IB_T10DIF_CRC,
+IB_T10DIF_CSUM
+};
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 09:03:27AM +0200, Eli Cohen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 01:20:44PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
The warning was unreachable. In the original code, it would print the
line number and the function but I have added an error message.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
17 matches
Mail list logo
