<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server"> <style></style> </head> <body> <div> <p dir="ltr">Thanks, Dave.</p> <p dir="ltr">Do you have an example when the up reply would be too big to fit into one sideband message? We don't expect that to happen.</p> <p dir="ltr">Mykola, can you see if Dave's patch is a good alternative to your patch?</p> <p dir="ltr">Harry</p> <br> <br> <br> <div class="x_gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:57 PM -0800, "Dave Airlie" <span dir="ltr"> <<a href="mailto:airlied@gmail.com" target="_blank">airlied@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <br> </div> </div> <font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;"> <div class="PlainText">On 19 December 2015 at 08:14, Harry Wentland <harry.wentland@amd.com> wrote:<br> > From: Mykola Lysenko <Mykola.Lysenko@amd.com><br> ><br> > We should always send reply for UP request in order<br> > to make downstream device clean-up resources appropriately.<br> ><br> > Issue was that reply for UP request was sent only once.<br> <br> What happens though if the up reply is too big and needs to be cut into pieces,<br> <br> Since the return value of process_single_tx_qlock is<br> -value - errno.<br> 0 - part of msg sent<br> 1 - all of msg sent<br> <br> Does the attached patch make any difference?<br> <br> It handles the queue like the down queue.<br> <br> Dave.<br> </div> </span></font> </body> </html>