Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754715AbcCSOZI (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Mar 2016 10:25:08 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:35227 "EHLO mail-wm0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751812AbcCSOY7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Mar 2016 10:24:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56ED37C0.6090907@huawei.com> References: <56E65EFC.3030109@huawei.com> <56ED37C0.6090907@huawei.com> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 19:54:57 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] infiniband: hns: add Hisilicon RoCE support(driver code) From: Parav Pandit To: oulijun Cc: "Wei Hu(Xavier)" , Doug Ledford , "Hefty, Sean" , Hal Rosenstock , davem@davemloft.net, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, jiri@mellanox.com, Or Gerlitz , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, gongyangming@huawei.com, xiaokun@huawei.com, tangchaofei@huawei.com, haifeng.wei@huawei.com, yisen.zhuang@huawei.com, yankejian@huawei.com, lisheng011@huawei.com, charles.chenxin@huawei.com, linuxarm@huawei.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1212 Lines: 30 On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:58 PM, oulijun wrote: > On 2016/3/15 2:20, Parav Pandit wrote: >>>> >>>> Since SRQ is not supported in this driver version, can you keep >>>> remaining code base also to not bother about SRQ specifically >>>> poll_cq_one, modify_qp, destroy_qp etc? >>>> SRQ support can come as complete additional patch along with cmd_mask, >>>> callbacks and rest of the code. >>>> >>>> . >>> Sorry, I see your review in time. >>> Sure, SRQ is not supported in current roce driver. I have verified the function >>> for RDMA. It is not influence. For your question, we need to analyse it scientific. >>> after that, i will reply your doubt, is that ok? >> >> Yes. No problem. >> >> . >> > Hi, Parav Pandit > I have analyse and discuss with your reviewing. I considered that the srq is only the > condition branch in verbs and without independent function, so reserved it.I have delete the relative > function with srq independently. > if delete the branch operation with srq, it feel be inconvenient to understand > o.k. If I understand correctly, new patch will be without srq functionality. If thats the case, that makes review and maintainability easier. Thanks. Parav