On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:40:44PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote:
> > enum ib_qp_state {
> > @@ -1151,6 +1152,7 @@ struct ib_qp_attr {
> > u8 rnr_retry;
> > u8 alt_port_num;
> > u8 alt_timeout;
> > + u32 rate_limit;
> > };
>
> And I still disagree with this approach, as there is already an existing field in the API that limits rate.
Hi Sean,
We would like to elaborate more on the subject, and we need your help
here. Our cover letter [1] has description why the existing field is
not enough. Can you write a little bit more why you didn't like
the proposed approach to an existing and real problem?
Thanks
[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg43585.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
