OK, I applied these patches.
___
openib-general mailing list
openib-general@openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
I have put the following 2 patches in mst-for-2.6.18:
Author: Ishai Rabinovitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IB/srp: fix crash in srp_reconnect_target
commit 82bf649ad7e434ccb7ba91e2fc5764a5888bbfb4
Author: Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IB/cm: fix error handling in ib_send_cm_req
Both have been
Quoting r. Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > [PATCH] IB/mad: validate MADs for spec compliance C13-18.1.1
>
> Seems fine but I wonder why the ib_response_mad function moved into a
> public header.
OK, the problem was that a file using it was missing from a commit. Sorry.
I have updated the
Quoting r. Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: [openib-general] 2 patches in mst-for-2.6.18
>
> > [PATCH] IB/ipoib: fix packet loss after hardware address update
>
> Hm, OK I guess. Are we sure that the memcmp in the data path is OK?
I did some measureme
Roland Dreier wrote:
> > [PATCH] IB/mad: validate MADs for spec compliance C13-18.1.1
>
> Seems fine but I wonder why the ib_response_mad function moved into a
> public header.
This functionality was implemented / called from several places. Private
implementations have been replaced with a si
> [PATCH] IB/ipoib: fix packet loss after hardware address update
Hm, OK I guess. Are we sure that the memcmp in the data path is OK?
> [PATCH] IB/mad: validate MADs for spec compliance C13-18.1.1
Seems fine but I wonder why the ib_response_mad function moved into a
public header.
Also, how
Roland, I have put the following patches in my mst-for-2.6.18 tree:
$git log --pretty=short origin..mst-for-2.6.18
commit e882c87183b09edaf827d887d7897d2f73212392
Author: Michael S. Tsirkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[PATCH] IB/ipoib: fix packet loss after hardware address update
commit 6ee6eba4d31
