On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:35:13 -0700 Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We hit a bug in the RHEL4 kernel which was fixed in your latest tree. The > bug > > was in mthca_alloc_memfree. When comparing your code to the current RH > kernel, > > we wondered why you would not return the error code from mthca_alloc_db > rather > > than -ENOMEM as demonstrated in the patch below? > > Does Red Hat know about the bug so they can fix it in an update? Yes I emailed Doug and our contractor here with a patch which uses the return values from mthca_alloc_db. > > Anyway, I don't think the return value matters much -- I think when I > wrote the code, I just figured that the allocation failed so it makes > sense to return ENOMEM rather than whatever internal reason caused the > allocation to fail. Does it make any practical difference one way or > another? > Only because a ULP could print the return code and one could get a better idea of what the error was. (Lustre does this.) Since mthca_alloc_db returns EINVAL as well as ENOMEM it seems wasteful to ignore that. Thanks, Ira _______________________________________________ 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
