On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:13:31AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > Shouldn't be an issue with transparent unions these days:
> >
> > union {
> > struct ib_reg_wrfr_regwr;
> > struct ib_send_wr fr_invwr;
> > };
>
> Right, but isn't that a
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:06:33AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>> Would it make sense to unionize these as they are guaranteed not to
>>> execute together? Some people don't like this sort of savings.
>>
>> I dislike unions because the
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:06:33AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > Would it make sense to unionize these as they are guaranteed not to
> > execute together? Some people don't like this sort of savings.
>
> I dislike unions because they make the code that uses
> them less readable. I can define macro
> On Dec 16, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
>
>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/xprt_rdma.h
>> b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/xprt_rdma.h
>> index 4197191..e60d817 100644
>> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/xprt_rdma.h
>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/xprt_rdma.h
>> @@ -206,6 +206,8 @@ struct rpcrdma_
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/xprt_rdma.h b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/xprt_rdma.h
index 4197191..e60d817 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/xprt_rdma.h
+++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/xprt_rdma.h
@@ -206,6 +206,8 @@ struct rpcrdma_frmr {
enum rpcrdma_frmr_state fr_state;
struct work
For FRWR FASTREG and LOCAL_INV, move the ib_*_wr structure off
the stack. This allows frwr_op_map and frwr_op_unmap to chain
WRs together without limit to register or invalidate a set of MRs
with a single ib_post_send().
(This will be for chaining LOCAL_INV requests).
Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever