> > +/*
> > + * Post a WR and block until its completion is reaped for the SQ.
> > + */
> > +static void __ib_drain_sq(struct ib_qp *qp)
> > +{
> > + struct ib_qp_attr attr = { .qp_state = IB_QPS_ERR };
> > + struct ib_drain_cqe sdrain;
> > + struct ib_send_wr swr = {}, *bad_swr;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + swr.wr_cqe = &sdrain.cqe;
> > + sdrain.cqe.done = ib_drain_qp_done;
> > + init_completion(&sdrain.done);
> > +
> > + ret = ib_modify_qp(qp, &attr, IB_QP_STATE);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + WARN_ONCE(ret, "failed to drain QP: %d\n", ret);
> > + return;
> > + }
>
> Should it query qp-state and then modify if needed? I am not liking the
> the extra step which is highly unlikely in a normal usage conditions?
> especially for a shared CQ it is really redundant.
>
Hey Devesh, on a previous round of reviews for this series, I thought you agreed that this was fine?
See: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg33202.html
My personal opinion is that calling query_qp() and only modifying if needed is as much work as just calling modify since ERR->ERR is basically a noop.
Steve.
--
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
