On Mar 11, 2010, at 19:59 , Roland Dreier wrote: > I think we can worry about that if/when an HCA comes along that supports > global atomics for ordinary atomics but not enhanced atomics.
With the proposed patches in place, how do you know if masked atomics are implemented or not? Guess apps need to know this information already on todays HCAs. > Although perhaps it would be cleaner to change the atomic_cap enum to: > > /* > * IB_ATOMIC_NONE: no atomic capability > * IB_ATOMIC_HCA: all ops are atomic within HCA But IB_ATOMIC_HCA does not tell you if the masked ones are supported or not. > * IB_ATOMIC_GLOB: standard ops atomic with respect to all > memory ops; masked ops atomic within HCA What if an HCA supports standards ops with respect to all memory ops, but the HCA does not support masked atomics? Hence, I think it would be cleaner if a new capability, masked_atomic_cap, were introduced, using the original definitions (NONE, HCA, GLOB). Thanks, Håkon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
