[ofa-general] Re: [PATCH RFC/untested v0.5] IPoIB/CM: fix SRQ WR leak

[Roland Dreier]

 > Hmm, I would like to quote the spec *literally*. Maybe
 > - and then invoke a Destroy QP or Reset QP.

That's fine ... in fact the spec has a bullet for that line too (I
just looked).  The way you have it formatted now is visually kind of
strange (the last line looks odd):

 > + * - Put the QP in the Error State
 > + * - Wait for the Affiliated Asynchronous Last WQE Reached Event;
 > + * - either:
 > + *       drain the CQ by invoking the Poll CQ verb and either wait for CQ
 > + *       to be empty or the number of Poll CQ operations has exceeded
 > + *       CQ capacity size;
 > + * - or
 > + *       post another WR that completes on the same CQ and wait for this
 > + *       WR to return as a WC; (NB: this is the option that we use)
 > + * and then invoke a Destroy QP or Reset QP.

which doesn't really match the spec's formatting... I guess this is
pretty minor, but I would write the comment as:

* - Put the QP in the Error State;
* - wait for the Affiliated Asynchronous Last WQE Reached Event;
* - either:
*   - drain the CQ by invoking the Poll CQ verb and either wait for CQ
*     to be empty or the number of Poll CQ operations has exceeded
*     CQ capacity size; or
*   - post another WR that completes on the same CQ and wait for this
*     WR to return as a WC;
* - and then invoke a Destroy QP or Reset QP.
*
* For IPoIB we choose the second option of posting another WR, and we
* keep a dedicated QP in the error state for doing this.

 > > This actually seems like a good motivation for the mthca RESET ->
 > > ERROR fix.  We could avoid the transition to INIT if we fixed mthca
 > > and mlx4, right?
 > 
 > Yes. That was the motivation.

OK, I just queued the mthca and mlx4 versions of the RESET->ERROR fix.
So I guess you can drop the dummy transition to INIT within IPoIB for
the final version of the WQE leakage patch.

 - R.