> > 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.
> The difference between what I propose and what you propose is that my
> version unconditionally arms ALL EQs regardless of whether we find any
> EQEs in them while you arm only the EQs in which you find EQEs. The
> justification for doing this comes from the following scenario. Suppose
> we have two EQs, 0 and 1:
I understand all that. The question is, what's the difference between
my version (which is in my tree now), which does:
mlx4_eq_int(...eq...)
{
...
eq_set_ci(eq, 1);
return eqes_found;
}
and your version, which does
mlx4_eq_int(eq);
eq_set_ci(eq, 1);
for every call to mlx4_eq_int()? Why does it matter if the
eq_set_ci() is inside mlx4_eq_int() or outside?
- 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
