> - Rather than changing IB_MAD_IGNORE_MKEY to IB_MAD_IGNORE_MKEY_BKEY, > why not introduce new flags IB_MAD_IGNORE_BKEY and IB_MAD_IGNORE_ALL > with IB_MAD_IGNORE_ALL set to IB_MAD_IGNORE_MKEY | IB_MAD_IGNORE_BKEY? > This matches the behavior of the FW better and lets existing code > such as sysfs.c remain unchanged.
I agree. Creating a new flag to ignore the BKEY seems like a better approach. I don't know if it makes sense to create an IGNORE_ALL flag, in case the flags need to be extended in the future. > - This last comment is just taste and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't > see much advantage to defining a separate function build_smp_wc() > that is only called from one place. I think that this is taste, but I myself find that separating functionality out into different routines tends to generate more readable code, provided that the code is divided in a sane way. In this specific case, I think a separate call makes sense, but that's just my opinion... - Sean _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
