Hal Rosenstock wrote: > On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 08:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> Quoting Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] osm: Converting the the C++ code to C >>> inosm_ucast_lash.c >>> >>> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 07:12, Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote: >>>> Hal Rosenstock wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 03:40, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>>> Quoting Yevgeny Kliteynik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] osm: Converting the the C++ code to C in >>>>>>> osm_ucast_lash.c >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Hal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Converting the the C++ code to C. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please apply both to trunk and to 1.2 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yevgeny Kliteynik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>> NAK. >>>>>>>> 1. I don't see any C++ here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Why do we need this on ofed branch? >>>>>>>> Only bugfixes should go there. What bug does it fix? >>>>>>> There are 3 things in this patch: >>>>>>> 1. int i -> uint16_t i >>>>>>> 2. Moving variable declaration (switch_bitmap) to the beginning >>>>>>> of the function (currently, it is declared after OSM_LOG_ENTER) >>>>>>> 3. Changing C99 dynamically allocated array to the old style. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First two can be categorized as bugs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The third one is for compiler on windows. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Each of these elements breaks OSM compilation on Windows. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we don't include either of these, then OFED 1.2 OpenSM compilation >>>>>>> on windows will be broken. >>>>>> Ultimately, whether to merge this this and where is up to the >>>>>> maintainer. But I >>>>>> note that OFED 1.2 goals do not include windows builds. >>>>> While not a formal OFED 1.2 goal, doesn't this depend on whether there >>>>> is intended to be a Windows equivalent to the OFED 1.2 OpenSM ? >>>> I'm not aware of any plans for windows equivalent to the OFED 1.2 OpenSM, >>> Should there be ? >> Isn't that what we need to know to decide whether to merge this patch? > > to OFED 1.2, yes. > >>> master may be less stable and certainly is likely to >>> be less tested than OFED 1.2 at any point in time. >> I guess openib-windows guys will be able to branch off from ofed 1.2 branch >> if they like. But even if you fix compilation issues on ofed 1.2 now, it's >> unlikely >> a windows release won't include other changes as compared to the linux one. > > I'm not sure what changes you are referring to but I would think the > more tested the base is, the easier this is and fewer changes are > involved. > >> So why bother? > > You're right that it's probably not worth the effort.
I checked it with the Windows team - they don't have any intention to use OFED 1.2 OpenSM. -- Yevgeny > -- Hal > _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
