On Sun, 2017-02-12 at 19:19 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 03:56:11PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > -static void srp_destroy_qp(struct ib_qp *qp)
> > +static void srp_destroy_qp(struct srp_rdma_ch *ch, struct ib_qp *qp)
> > {
> > - ib_drain_rq(qp);
> > + spin_lock_irq(&ch->lock);
> > + ib_process_cq_direct(ch->send_cq, -1);
>
> I see that you are already using "-1" in your code, but the comments in the
> ib_process_cq_direct states that no new code should use "-1".
>
> 61 * Note: for compatibility reasons -1 can be passed in %budget for unlimited
> 62 * polling. Do not use this feature in new code, it will be removed soon.
> 63 */
> 64 int ib_process_cq_direct(struct ib_cq *cq, int budget)
Although it is possible to avoid passing -1 as 'budget' by passing a number
that is at least as large as the number of expected completions, it would
make it harder to verify the SRP initiator driver. So I propose to modify
the comment above ib_process_cq_direct().
Bart.��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���fk��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
