[PATCH v2 3/3] nvme-rdma: Handle number of queue changes

[Chao Leng]

On 2022/8/26 19:33, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 03:31:15PM +0800, Chao Leng wrote:
>>> After seeing both version I tend to do say the first one keeps the
>>> 'wierd' stuff more closer together and doesn't make the callside of
>>> nvme_rdma_start_io_queues() do the counting. So my personal preference
>> I don't understand "do the counting".
> 
> Sorry. I meant we fist start only queues for which have resources
> allocated (nr_queues in my patch). And then we only need to start
> potentially added queues.
> 
>> Show the code:
>> ---
>>   drivers/nvme/host/rdma.c | 9 ++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/rdma.c b/drivers/nvme/host/rdma.c
>> index 7d01fb770284..8dfb79726e13 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/rdma.c
>> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/rdma.c
>> @@ -980,10 +980,6 @@ static int nvme_rdma_configure_io_queues(struct nvme_rdma_ctrl *ctrl, bool new)
>>                          goto out_free_tag_set;
>>          }
>>
>> -       ret = nvme_rdma_start_io_queues(ctrl);
>> -       if (ret)
>> -               goto out_cleanup_connect_q;
> 
> Again, these need to start so that...
> 
>> -
>>          if (!new) {
>>                  nvme_start_queues(&ctrl->ctrl);
>>                  if (!nvme_wait_freeze_timeout(&ctrl->ctrl,
> 
> ... this here has a chance to work.
Some request will be submited, and will failed, and then retry
or failover. It is similar to nvme_cancel_tagset in nvme_rdma_teardown_io_queues.
I think it is acceptable.
> .
>