Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> 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.
I presume you mean passive side for receiving. Let us revisit the issue when there is a need. At this point it is not relevant. Pradeep _______________________________________________ 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
