> > > > +int ib_create_qp_range(struct ib_pd *pd, struct ib_qp_init_attr > > *qp_init_attr, > > + int nqps, int align, struct ib_qp *list[]) > > It just seems wrong to me to require the caller to specify the alignment > restrictions. Isn't this HCA specific? I agree with you about this, but since my previous posts on the issue did not receive too much attention, I did not want to change my implementation before the issue has been discussed.
> Is IPoIB really going to know > whether or not the QP numbers returned by this call are "aligned" > or not? What if I call ib_create_qp_range() with nqps=3 and align=0? I am not sure I understand your argument here: in this case you create 3 consecutive QPs with no other restrictions on the number of of the first. > > Also, in ib_verbs.h, struct ib_qp_attr now has a struct rca_attr field. > I don't see why the struct rca_attr field is needed for ib_modify_qp(). > It seems to me that this information should be stored as part of the > QP info when creating the N QPs. Why should the verbs caller need to > know about this? The values are determined by the HCA when the QPs > are created. > I totally agree with you here too and I also sent an email about that some time ago. Again, I want to trigger a discussion to close on the API before re-implementing. I hope to get more opinions and then re-work the patch. _______________________________________________ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg