> I'd like to better understand the "allocated by the caller ... are more > difficult to deal with" part of your response - for ibv_send_wr - if > the caller have set a new IBV_WR_NEW_FEATURE value for the wr type, they > surely aware to the new fields and actually the size of the structure > can change as of structs allocated by the library. As for ibv_wc, yep, > looks like we can't change the size unless we want to write a copatility > layer that also comes into play in fast path calls, specifically > ibv_poll_cq and translates from the new ibv_wc to the old ibv_wc structure.
You're right. I was thinking more of ibv_wc, which has issues, since it may be used as an array. ibv_send_wr is probably okay, since we walk a list using pointers. - Sean -- 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
