On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 01:34:53PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 03:55:57PM +0300, Yuval Shaia wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:19:21AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:40:48AM -0700, Yuval Shaia wrote:
> > > > Decouple SG support from HW ability to do UD checksum.
> > > > This coupling is for historical reasons and removed with 'commit
> > > > ec5f06156423 ("net: Kill link between CSUM and SG features.")'
> > >
> > > Shouldn't this also check that the QP's sg limit is something
> > > appropriate? At least > 1 ..
> >
> > What is special with 1?
>
> One means the hardware doesn't support SG at all.
>
> Is there a reason to sg_linearize down to ipoib if we know the
> hardware doesn't support SG at all? Presumably it is better to let the
> netstack deal with that case.
ok, i see the point but as Leon Romanovsky mentioned - this is not an issue
with the patch itself, right? i.e. the original code relays on the fact
that HW supports UD-CSUM and did not checked QP's sg limit (we even do not
have any QP at this stage yet).
>
> Jason
> --
> 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
--
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
