I would like to get some input from Sean before proceeding on this, but one thing does jump out at me: the order of the patches seems strange to me (or maybe it's the way the patches are split). Starting with this change only:
> @@ -2073,7 +2073,7 @@ int rdma_bind_addr(struct rdma_cm_id *id, struct > sockaddr *addr) > - if (addr->sa_family != AF_INET) > + if (addr->sa_family != AF_INET && addr->sa_family != AF_INET6) > return -EAFNOSUPPORT; seems wrong to me. If I just have this patch applied (eg if I'm doing a bisection to track down a bug) then it seems I'll get some very strange results if I try to bind an IPv6 address. It seems to me we would want all the prep work like using sockaddr_storage where needed, etc. before we actually enable IPv6 in the API. - R. _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
