On 09:51 Fri 27 Feb , Sean Hefty wrote: > >> - modify CHECK_AND_SET_VAL - comparison is done as signed, but > >> assignments > >> are unsigned. This is kind of confusing, but that's how it appears the > >> macro is used. It might be clearer if instead of passing -1 into the > >> macro, that a SET_VAL macro be used instead. > > > >What do you mean? Another macro? > > yes -- instead of passing -1 into CHECK_AND_SET_VAL as the value to compare > against, call a different macro that just sets the value, unless I'm > misunderstanding why -1 is passed in. Then CHECK_AND_SET_VAL would do > unsigned > comparisons. > > I can submit a patch for this, but I wasn't completely sure of the intent of > using -1 as the compare value.
For some parameters (such as SL) "0" is valid value and could be specified using command line options, so I used -1 as initial value to mark such parameters as non-requested for the query (so its comp_mask is not selected at all). Sasha _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
