On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 13:30, Roland Dreier wrote: > > None of the functions in smi.c follow your definition. > > 0 is used to say discard packet and 1 for completion up the stack. > > > So, I am not sure if reworking this one function with 3 return values buys > > anything. > > Good point, I didn't look closely at smi.c. I think reworking all the > smi.c return values with explicit IB_SMI_DISCARD etc return values > would make the code much easier to understand. Probably doing that as > a separate patch before adding the switch stuff would be a good idea.
Rather than IB_SMI_DISCARD, it seems to me that IB_SMI_LOCAL and IB_SMI_SEND would be more in keeping with the current comments. Is a separate patch for this along these lines really needed before the switch SMI changes ? -- Hal > - R. _______________________________________________ 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
