On 03/09/2016 07:54 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
+ if (i + 1 != ctx->nr_ops)
+ rdma_wr->wr.next = &ctx->map.wrs[i + 1].wr;
Not that this really matters, but my own preference is to write such a
comparison as i + 1 < ctx->nr_ops.
@@ -787,6 +799,16 @@ struct ib_qp *ib_create_qp(struct ib_pd *pd,
atomic_inc(&pd->usecnt);
atomic_inc(&qp_init_attr->send_cq->usecnt);
+
+ if (qp_init_attr->cap.max_rdma_ctxs) {
+ ret = rdma_rw_init_mrs(qp, qp_init_attr);
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_err("failed to init MR pool ret= %d\n", ret);
+ ib_destroy_qp(qp);
+ qp = ERR_PTR(ret);
+ }
+ }
ib_destroy_qp() can fail and if it fails it does not decrement
pd->usecnt. Does this have to be handled or reported in some way?
Otherwise this patch looks fine to me.
Bart.
--
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
