Suri, On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 14:05, Suresh Shelvapille wrote: > Hal: > > You are just looking at function smi_check_forward_dr_smp(). > > Take a look at what smi_handle_dr_smp_send() and smi_handle_dr_smp_recv() > return. > In these two functions 0= discard, 1=process. This is what we were referring > to.
I see what you are referring to now. That's true for the other routines but unfortunately not this one. > If we are fixing the return codes to enums for smi_check_forward_dr_smp() > function, > may be enum names can be made generic enough so that the other two functions > could use the > enums as well? Not sure what the one set of names would be: discard != local and process != send Two sets of names (enums) could do it though. If this is what is to be done then it should be 2 patches with the first preserving the current CA/router only support with the enums and the second adding in switch SMI. -- Hal > Anyway, you guys are better judges of these issue... > Thanks, > Suri > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:51 PM > > To: Roland Dreier > > Cc: Suresh Shelvapille; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH] IB/core: Enhance SMI for > > switchsupport > > > > 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
