On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Hal Rosenstock <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Sasha Khapyorsky <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 12:55 Fri 06 Mar , Hal Rosenstock wrote: >>> >>> It could be subsequent patch but thought it best to include it. Do you >>> want this separate ? >> >> Without clear usage case I would prefer to not have it at all - finally >> it is on a fast path. > > It's the same as what is done in the kernel for MAD response but I > removed it because I could see you were against this. > >>> >>> > BR is not used anywhere in OpenSM. >>> >>> No, but someone might use ib_types.h to build BM. >> >> We cannot know what will be needed then - this someone will need to care >> anyway. > > You could say that about a lot of things accepted which aren't fully > integrated. > >>> > And this function which should process TrapRepress method does nothing, >>> > right? >>> >>> Just some validation; It doesn't need to do anything (just retire the >>> transaction). >> >> Then I don't understand - how is trap 144 repress handled? And why >> those changes in trap_rcv_process_response() were needed? > > Perhaps it's being overly pendantic. I can revise the patch to not > have the repress get this far.
I misread your comment. trap_rcv needs to cause the repress for the trap to be generated. -- Hal > -- Hal > >> Sasha >> > _______________________________________________ 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
