[openib-general] Re: SDP_CONN_LOCK

[Libor Michalek]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 03:49:31PM -0800, Sean Hefty wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Quoting r. Roland Dreier <roland at topspin.com>:
> >>
> >>BTW, since mthca currently calls completion handlers directly from
> >>interrupt context (rather than BH/tasklet context), it might be worth
> >>renaming all the SDP locking macros so they're not confusingly named
> >>with _BH suffixes.
> > 
> > I think it would be much nicer to reduce the number of macros used.
> 
> I'd have to agree with this.  The SDP locking macros are fairly complex 
> and hide a lot of functionality.  E.g. SDP_CONN_RELOCK results in 
> polling/rearming the CQ, same with SDP_CONN_UNLOCK.  Maybe that's just 
> a naming issue though.
> 
> I think these would probably be better off as just function calls, 
> rather than macros.  SDP_CONN_LOCK calls sdp_conn_internal_lock(), and 
> that appears to be the only place that the function is called. 
> Similarly, SDP_CONN_UNLOCK calls sdp_conn_internal_unlock().  It seems 
> that you could just merge the macros into the function calls.

  OK. I had used macros since in the fast path the functions wouldn't
get called, but since it sounds like it makes things less readable I
should be able to quickly try out replacing the macros with functions,
and see what if any effect it has on performance.

  And here I would have thought SDP_CONN_HOLD as a macro would have
bugged people more. :)

-Libor