[ofa-general] [PATCH] IB/mlx4 mlx4_ib: eq interrupts

[Roland Dreier]

 > > I don't understand what you mean here.  How is unconditionally arming
 > > the EQ at the end of mlx4_eq_int() any different from your proposed
 > > patch?  My change calls eq_set_ci() at the end of every call to
 > > mlx4_eq_int(), and your change calls eq_set_ci() after every call to
 > > mlx4_eq_int().  I'm probably missing something obvious, but I really
 > > don't see it right now.

 > The difference between what I propose and what you propose is that my
 > version unconditionally arms ALL EQs regardless of whether we find any
 > EQEs in them while you arm only the EQs in which you find EQEs. The
 > justification for doing this comes from the following scenario. Suppose
 > we have two EQs, 0 and 1:

I understand all that.  The question is, what's the difference between
my version (which is in my tree now), which does:

	mlx4_eq_int(...eq...)
	{
		...
		eq_set_ci(eq, 1);
	
		return eqes_found;
	}

and your version, which does

	mlx4_eq_int(eq);
        eq_set_ci(eq, 1);

for every call to mlx4_eq_int()?  Why does it matter if the
eq_set_ci() is inside mlx4_eq_int() or outside?

 - R.