On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 08:04 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:44 AM, David Dillow d...@thedillows.org wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 20:54 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
@@ -989,19 +989,21 @@ static void srp_send_completion(struct ib_cq *cq,
void *target_ptr)
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:44 PM, David Dillow d...@thedillows.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 08:04 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:44 AM, David Dillow d...@thedillows.org wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 20:54 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
@@ -989,19 +989,21 @@
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 18:53 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:44 PM, David Dillow d...@thedillows.org wrote:
Put the assignment on the same line as the declaration and I'll deal
with the name.
Putting the rsv assignment on the same line as its declaration would
make
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:25 PM, David Dillow d...@thedillows.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 18:53 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:44 PM, David Dillow d...@thedillows.org wrote:
Put the assignment on the same line as the declaration and I'll deal
with the name.
Putting the rsv assignment on the same line as its declaration would
make that line exceed 80 columns and hence would trigger a checkpatch
complaint, so it's better to keep it as it is now.
I didn't check it with checkpatch, but vi tells me it is 78 characters.
In any case I think the
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 20:54 +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
@@ -989,19 +989,21 @@ static void srp_send_completion(struct ib_cq *cq, void
*target_ptr)
static struct srp_iu *__srp_get_tx_iu(struct srp_target_port *target,
enum srp_request_type req_type)
{
The information unit transmit ring (srp_target.tx_ring) in ib_srp is currently
only used for allocating requests sent by the initiator to the target. This
patch prepares using that ring buffer for allocation of both requests and
responses. Also, this patch differentiates the uses of SRP_SQ_SIZE,
