> > @@ -1373,7 +1374,7 @@ int ib_peek_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int wc_
> > static inline int ib_req_notify_cq(struct ib_cq *cq,
> > enum ib_cq_notify cq_notify)
> > {
> > - return cq->device->req_notify_cq(cq, cq_notify);
> > + return cq->device->req_notify_cq(cq, cq_notify, NULL);
> > }
> >
> > /**
>
> Can't say I like this adding overhead in data path operations (and note this
> can't be optimized out). And kernel consumers work without passing it in, so it
> hurts kernel code even for Chelsio. Granted, the cost is small here, but these
> things do tend to add up.
>
> It seems all Chelsio needs is to pass in a consumer index - so, how about a new
> entry point? Something like void set_cq_udata(struct ib_cq *cq, struct ib_udata *udata)?
>
Adding a new entry point would hurt chelsio's user mode performance if
if then requires 2 kernel transitions to rearm the cq.
Passing in user data is sort of SOP for these sorts of verbs.
How much does passing one more param cost for kernel users?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
