On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:19:28PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:02:27PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:37:47AM -0600, Hefty, Sean wrote:
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * rdma_max_mad_size - Return the max MAD size required by this RDMA
> > > > Port.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @device: Device
> > > > + * @port_num: Port number
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Return the max MAD size required by the Port. Should return 0 if
> > > > the
> > > > port
> > > > + * does not support MADs
> > > > + */
> > > > +static inline size_t rdma_max_mad_size(struct ib_device *device, u8
> > > > port_num)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return device->port_immutable[port_num].max_mad_size;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Should this function check the mad_cap bit and return 0 if not set? If
> > > not,
> > > I would remove the 'should return 0...' statement from the comment above
> > > and
> > > state that the caller should check the mad_cap bit first.
> >
> > I'll change the comment.
>
> If there is no mad support the port_immutable.max_mad_size should be
> 0, force it during registration, then the comment is right.
>
> Force to 0 is better than 'some random value'
When you say "force" do you mean have the drivers which don't support MAD
explicitly set it to 0?
The value is 0 by default (kzalloc) and is why I wrote the comment like I did.
Ira
--
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
