> Quoting Pradeep Satyanarayana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: NOSRQ misc patch [PATCH V1] > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> @@ -1168,9 +1170,9 @@ static struct ib_qp *ipoib_cm_create_tx_ > >> attr.recv_cq = priv->cq; > >> attr.srq = priv->cm.srq; > >> attr.cap.max_send_wr = ipoib_sendq_size; > >> - attr.cap.max_recv_wr = 1; > >> + attr.cap.max_recv_wr = 0; > >> attr.cap.max_send_sge = 1; > >> - attr.cap.max_recv_sge = 1; > >> + attr.cap.max_recv_sge = 0; > >> attr.sq_sig_type = IB_SIGNAL_ALL_WR; > >> attr.qp_type = IB_QPT_RC; > >> attr.send_cq = cq; > > > > I don't see how does this fix things. > > This line > >> attr.srq = priv->cm.srq; > > connected the TX QP to SRQ, making it possible to get packets on this QP. > > But if cm.srq is NULL, and a remote sends a packet on this connection, > > the connection will get closed. Which is a quality of implementation issue. > > > When the QP numbers are exchanged correctly, then it should not receive > a packet on this QP in the first place.
Re-read the RFC. It is perfectly legal to reuse a passive QP for transmitting packets. We don't do this currently but we might in the future. > That is an error case and so should > be a rare event. Assuming that still happens, that should be setup again > because it is an RC connection. Won't it closed immediately again once remote tries to use it? -- MST _______________________________________________ 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
