search for: size_mask

...below > comments in mlx4_en_process_rx_cq(): > > ``` > /* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx > * descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of > * reading 'cqe->index' */ > index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask; > cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor; > ``` > > It seems that although they have a completion > queue, they are still using the ring in order. I guess so (at least from the above bits). Git grep -i "out of order" in drivers/net gives som...

...below > comments in mlx4_en_process_rx_cq(): > > ``` > /* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx > * descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of > * reading 'cqe->index' */ > index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask; > cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor; > ``` > > It seems that although they have a completion > queue, they are still using the ring in order. I guess so (at least from the above bits). Git grep -i "out of order" in drivers/net gives som...

On 2018?05?16? 22:33, Tiwei Bie wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:05:44PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 2018?05?16? 21:45, Tiwei Bie wrote: >>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 08:51:43PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> On 2018?05?16? 20:39, Tiwei Bie wrote: >>>>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 07:50:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>> On

On 2018?05?16? 22:33, Tiwei Bie wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:05:44PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 2018?05?16? 21:45, Tiwei Bie wrote: >>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 08:51:43PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> On 2018?05?16? 20:39, Tiwei Bie wrote: >>>>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 07:50:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>> On

...just had a quick glance. And I found below comments in mlx4_en_process_rx_cq(): ``` /* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx * descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of * reading 'cqe->index' */ index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask; cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor; ``` It seems that although they have a completion queue, they are still using the ring in order. I guess maybe storage device may want OOO. Best regards, Tiwei Bie > > Thanks > > > > > > Not for th...

...gt;>> >>> ``` >>> /* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx >>> * descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of >>> * reading 'cqe->index' */ >>> index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask; >>> cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor; >>> ``` >>> >>> It seems that although they have a completion >>> queue, they are still using the ring in order. >> I guess so (at least from the above bits). Git grep -i &q...

...gt;>> >>> ``` >>> /* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx >>> * descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of >>> * reading 'cqe->index' */ >>> index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask; >>> cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor; >>> ``` >>> >>> It seems that although they have a completion >>> queue, they are still using the ring in order. >> I guess so (at least from the above bits). Git grep -i &q...

..._process_rx_cq(): > > > > ``` > > /* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx > > * descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of > > * reading 'cqe->index' */ > > index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask; > > cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor; > > ``` > > > > It seems that although they have a completion > > queue, they are still using the ring in order. > > I guess so (at least from the above bits). Git grep -i "out of o...

...> > > > /* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx > > > > * descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of > > > > * reading 'cqe->index' */ > > > > index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask; > > > > cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor; > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > It seems that although they have a completion > > > > queue, they are still using the ring in order. > > > I guess so (at...