> > > this is now returning a pointer to the MAD layer's internal QP. I
> > > guess this is OK -- the only user of the pointer seems to be the mthca
> > > MAD_IFC command, which just grabs the QP number anyway. But I just
> > > wanted to point out this wart...
> >
> > What's the problem wi
> > this is now returning a pointer to the MAD layer's internal QP. I
> > guess this is OK -- the only user of the pointer seems to be the mthca
> > MAD_IFC command, which just grabs the QP number anyway. But I just
> > wanted to point out this wart...
>
> What's the problem with this?
It
> Quoting Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] return qp pointer as part of ib_wc
>
> Looking at this in depth, I see one very iffy part:
>
> > @@ -652,7 +653,7 @@ static void build_smp_wc(u64 wr_id, u16 slid, u16
> pkey_index, u8 port_num,
> >wc->pkey_index = pkey
Looking at this in depth, I see one very iffy part:
> @@ -652,7 +653,7 @@ static void build_smp_wc(u64 wr_id, u16 slid, u16
> pkey_index, u8 port_num,
> wc->pkey_index = pkey_index;
> wc->byte_len = sizeof(struct ib_mad) + sizeof(struct ib_grh);
> wc->src_qp = IB_QP0;
> -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roland Dreier wrote:
>> This change makes sense to me. Does anyone object to queueing this
>> for 2.6.21?
>
> Indeed, it makes much sense, do you any idea what would it
> take to expose this capability also by libibverbs?
>
> Or.
>
Translating QP ID to a kernel point
Roland Dreier wrote:
> > Indeed, it makes much sense, do you any idea what would it take to
> > expose this capability also by libibverbs?
>
> I think the biggest problem would be libipathverbs, which is copying
> work completion structures directly out of the kernel (which looks
> pretty fragil
> Indeed, it makes much sense, do you any idea what would it take to
> expose this capability also by libibverbs?
I think the biggest problem would be libipathverbs, which is copying
work completion structures directly out of the kernel (which looks
pretty fragile if struct ibv_wc ever changes..
Roland Dreier wrote:
> This change makes sense to me. Does anyone object to queueing this
> for 2.6.21?
Indeed, it makes much sense, do you any idea what would it take to
expose this capability also by libibverbs?
Or.
___
openib-general mailing list
> Quoting Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] return qp pointer as part of ib_wc
>
> This change makes sense to me. Does anyone object to queueing this
> for 2.6.21?
And for-mm, pls: last version of IPoIB CM patch needs this.
--
MST
_
Ok with me.
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 13:40 -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
> This change makes sense to me. Does anyone object to queueing this
> for 2.6.21?
>
> - R.
>
> ___
> openib-general mailing list
> openib-general@openib.org
> http://openib.org/mail
This change makes sense to me. Does anyone object to queueing this
for 2.6.21?
- R.
___
openib-general mailing list
openib-general@openib.org
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/lis
11 matches
Mail list logo
