On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:25:41AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 05:14:35PM +0800, Tony Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:47:09AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 03:59:36PM +0800, Tony Lu wrote: > > > > Sorry for that if I missed something about properly using existing > > in-kernel API. I am not sure the proper API is to use ib_cq_pool_get() > > and ib_cq_pool_put()? > > > > If so, these APIs doesn't suit for current smc's usage, I have to > > refactor logic (tasklet and wr_id) in smc. I think it is a huge work > > and should do it with full discussion. > > This discussion is not going anywhere. Just to summarize, we (Jason and I) > are asking to use existing API, from the beginning. Yes, I can't agree more with you about using existing API and I have tried them earlier. The existing APIs are easy to use if I wrote a new logic. I also don't want to repeat the codes. The main obstacle is that the packet and wr processing of smc is tightly bound to the old API and not easy to replace with existing API. To solve a real issue, I have to fix it based on the old API. If using existing API in this patch, I have to refactor smc logics which needs more time. Our production tree is synced with smc next. So I choose to fix this issue first, then refactor these logic to fit existing API once and for all. > You can try and convince netdev maintainers to merge the code despite > our request. That's not my purpose to recklessly merge this patch. I appreciate that you can tell me existing APIs are available. So I listened to everyone and decided to go with a compromise, fix it first, then refactor. Thanks for your advice. Tony Lu
