On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:21:41PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 07:17:49PM +0000, Weiny, Ira wrote:
> > > Not sure, pick one of these, whatever works for you the best.
> >
> > No this will not work. We don't want to use the timeout the caller
> > provides. The timeout for netlink may (and should be) different
> > from the timeout needed when sending to the SA directly.
>
> Why?
The best use case is the desire to have the user space cache issue the query to
the SA on behalf of this request, cache the data, and return the response.
This means the Netlink timeout needs to be longer than the SA direct timeout.
>
> > N?????r??y????b?X??ǧv?^?){.n?+????{??ٚ?{ay? ʇڙ?,j??f???h???z? ?w??? ???j:+v???w?j?m????????zZ+?????ݢj"??!
>
> Does anyone else ever wonder what this garbage is on some of the
> messages from @intel folks?
Outlook issues... This msg should be better...
Ira
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
