On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > realistically I think we leave this workaround forever. it's not like > it costs very much.
I was thinking about applications which create and destroy HCA resources at a high rate which might be affected. > > Does mlx4 have any similar problem? > No, it does not. > > > This fixes the bug reported by Arthur from SGI here: > > http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/2008-May/050026.html > > This should be in the changelog itself... there's no reason to throw > away this useful information when merging the patch. OK. > > > Anyway, thanks for debugging this... one question, why not just use the > following (completely untested) change instead? Does this not work? > > At least using clear_highpage() instead of vmap() by hand seems much > simpler too if __GFP_ZERO isn't usable for some reason. Looks to me like using __GFP_ZERO is the cleanest approach. I like less clear_highpage() since it uses kmap_atomic() which could fail. _______________________________________________ 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
