> > @@ -249,8 +249,7 @@ static int mlx4_eq_int(struct mlx4_dev *dev, struct > > mlx4_eq *eq) > > } > > } > > > > - if (eqes_found) > > - eq_set_ci(eq, 1); > > + eq_set_ci(eq, 1); > > > > return eqes_found; > > }
> This will not ensure arming all EQs for all interrupts and we will face > the same problem of losing interrupts. I don't understand what you mean here. How is unconditionally arming the EQ at the end of mlx4_eq_int() any different from your proposed patch? My change calls eq_set_ci() at the end of every call to mlx4_eq_int(), and your change calls eq_set_ci() after every call to mlx4_eq_int(). I'm probably missing something obvious, but I really don't see it right now. - R. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
