Yes, sorry, revised attached,
Thanks, this looks good to apply to me.
Sean, any objection?
- R.
--
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
Sean, any objection?
Looks good to me. Thanks, Ira.
Acked-by: Sean Hefty sean.he...@intel.com
--
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
On May 20, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote:
mad_agent_priv-agent.mr = ib_get_dma_mr(port_priv-qp_info[qpn].qp-
pd,
IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE);
in which case it may be safer to check for the NULL pointer. Can you
confirm if this was the
@@ -2738,6 +2745,7 @@ static void init_mad_qp(struct
ib_mad_port_private *port_priv,
spin_lock_init(qp_info-snoop_lock);
qp_info-snoop_table = NULL;
qp_info-snoop_table_size = 0;
+qp_info-qp = NULL;
atomic_set(qp_info-snoop_count, 0);
}
This bit isn't
On May 22, 2011, at 9:05 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
@@ -2738,6 +2745,7 @@ static void init_mad_qp(struct
ib_mad_port_private *port_priv,
spin_lock_init(qp_info-snoop_lock);
qp_info-snoop_table = NULL;
qp_info-snoop_table_size = 0;
+qp_info-qp = NULL;
