On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:35:11PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:18:10PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>
> > > AFAIK, that is different, that is acking and retriggering a single shot
> > > notification, not completing a kernel initiated handshake.
> >
> > It is acking t
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:18:10PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > AFAIK, that is different, that is acking and retriggering a single shot
> > notification, not completing a kernel initiated handshake.
>
> It is acking that message from user was received by kernel and now
> processing.
But isn
> It is acking that message from user was received by kernel and now
> processing. The message from kernel to user are anyway unreliable [1],
> so I don't understand on which handshake you are talking.
>
> [1] "reliable transmissions from kernel to user are impossible in any
> case"
> https://linu
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:07:02AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:00:37PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:47:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:43:44PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:10:35PM +, Weiny, Ira wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:47:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:43:44PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 0
>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:47:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:43:44PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:19:01PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > >> It makes
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:00:37PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:47:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:43:44PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 a
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:47:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:43:44PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:19:01PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > >> It makes me wonder if it
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:43:44PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:19:01PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >> It makes me wonder if it is expected behavior for
> >> ibnl_rcv_reply_skb() to handle !NLM_F_REQUEST
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:19:01PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> It makes me wonder if it is expected behavior for
>> ibnl_rcv_reply_skb() to handle !NLM_F_REQUEST messages and do we
>> really need it? What are the scenarios? In my use c
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:19:01PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> It makes me wonder if it is expected behavior for
> ibnl_rcv_reply_skb() to handle !NLM_F_REQUEST messages and do we
> really need it? What are the scenarios? In my use case, which is
> for sure different from yours, I'm always set
11 matches
Mail list logo
