On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 11:50 +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
> On 2/28/2018 2:21 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 02/27/18 14:15, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
> > > -static int __ib_process_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int budget, struct ib_wc
> > > *poll_wc)
> > > +static int __ib_process_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int budget, struct ib_wc
> > > *poll_wc,
> > > + int batch)
> > > {
> > > - int i, n, completed = 0;
> > > - struct ib_wc *wcs = poll_wc ? : cq->wc;
> > > + int i, n, ib_poll_batch, completed = 0;
> > > + struct ib_wc *wcs;
> > > +
> > > + if (poll_wc) {
> > > + wcs = poll_wc;
> > > + ib_poll_batch = batch;
> > > + } else {
> > > + wcs = cq->wc;
> > > + ib_poll_batch = IB_POLL_BATCH;
> > > + }
> >
> > Since this code has to be touched I think that we can use this
> > opportunity to get rid of the "poll_wc ? : cq->wc" conditional and
> > instead use what the caller passes. That will require to update all
> > __ib_process_cq(..., ..., NULL) calls. I also propose to let the caller
> > pass ib_poll_batch instead of figuring it out in this function.
> > Otherwise the approach of this patch looks fine to me.
>
> Thanks Bart.
> I'll make these changes and submit.
That sounds reasonable to me too, thanks for reworking and resubmitting.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDDAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
