On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:50:38PM +0000, Weiny, Ira wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:57:22PM +0000, Weiny, Ira wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps you can give us an example of where the current code would
> > > work without modifications if the IBTA were to define any new base or
> > > smp class version?
> >
> > I think the point here is that every check for OPA_MIN_CLASS_VERSION must
> > also be combined with a check if the device in question is OPA or not.
>
> This contradicts what you say below....
How so?
if (mad_reg_req->mgmt_class_version >= OPA_MIN_CLASS_VERSION
&& !port_priv->qp_info[qpn].supports_jumbo_mads) {
Should be:
if (port_is_opa && mad_reg_req->mgmt_class_version >= OPA_MIN_CLASS_VERSION
&& !port_priv->qp_info[qpn].supports_jumbo_mads) {
And since port_is_opa = true implies
port_priv->qp_info[qpn].supports_jumbo_mads = true the above if can
never evaluate to true and can just be removed.
Jason
--
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
