Re: [PATCH 2/2] Do not set shared_ports when nreq > MAX_MSIX

2015-10-08 Thread Or Gerlitz
On 10/8/2015 2:54 PM, David Miller wrote: Also please fix you subject to have a proper "mlx4: " subsystem prefix. Carol, I have the patch and will submit it with other fixes that we have. Or. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majo

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Do not set shared_ports when nreq > MAX_MSIX

2015-10-08 Thread David Miller
From: Carol Soto Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 16:46:06 -0500 > > > On 10/6/2015 4:39 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:27 AM, wrote: >>> From: Carol L Soto >>> >>> If we get MAX_MSIX interrupts would like to have each receive ring >>> with his own msix interrupt line. >> so 9293267

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Do not set shared_ports when nreq > MAX_MSIX

2015-10-07 Thread Carol Soto
On 10/7/2015 3:08 AM, Matan Barak wrote: On 10/7/2015 10:25 AM, Matan Barak wrote: On 10/7/2015 12:46 AM, Carol Soto wrote: On 10/6/2015 4:39 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:27 AM, wrote: From: Carol L Soto If we get MAX_MSIX interrupts would like to have each recei

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Do not set shared_ports when nreq > MAX_MSIX

2015-10-07 Thread Matan Barak
On 10/7/2015 10:25 AM, Matan Barak wrote: On 10/7/2015 12:46 AM, Carol Soto wrote: On 10/6/2015 4:39 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:27 AM, wrote: From: Carol L Soto If we get MAX_MSIX interrupts would like to have each receive ring with his own msix interrupt line.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Do not set shared_ports when nreq > MAX_MSIX

2015-10-07 Thread Matan Barak
On 10/7/2015 12:46 AM, Carol Soto wrote: On 10/6/2015 4:39 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:27 AM, wrote: From: Carol L Soto If we get MAX_MSIX interrupts would like to have each receive ring with his own msix interrupt line. so 9293267a3e2a was only partially correct?

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Do not set shared_ports when nreq > MAX_MSIX

2015-10-06 Thread Carol Soto
On 10/6/2015 4:39 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:27 AM, wrote: From: Carol L Soto If we get MAX_MSIX interrupts would like to have each receive ring with his own msix interrupt line. so 9293267a3e2a was only partially correct? and/or not fully optimal? please elaborate m

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Do not set shared_ports when nreq > MAX_MSIX

2015-10-06 Thread Or Gerlitz
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:27 AM, wrote: > From: Carol L Soto > > If we get MAX_MSIX interrupts would like to have each receive ring > with his own msix interrupt line. so 9293267a3e2a was only partially correct? and/or not fully optimal? please elaborate more on that in your change log. > > F

[PATCH 2/2] Do not set shared_ports when nreq > MAX_MSIX

2015-10-06 Thread clsoto
From: Carol L Soto If we get MAX_MSIX interrupts would like to have each receive ring with his own msix interrupt line. Fixes: 9293267a3e2a ('net/mlx4_core: Capping number of requested MSIXs to MAX_MSIX') Signed-off-by: Carol L Soto --- drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c | 4 +--- 1 f