On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 05:47:49PM -0600, Hefty, Sean wrote:
> > @@ -236,6 +252,24 @@ enum smi_action smi_handle_dr_smp_recv(struct ib_smp
> > *smp, u8 node_type,
> > smp->dr_slid == IB_LID_PERMISSIVE);
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Adjust information for a received SMP
> > + * Return 0 if the SMP should be dropped
>
> The function returns an enum. The comment of returning 0 is misleading. The
> entire comment seems unnecessary.
Sorry, I just copied the same comment from the IB function.
/*
* Adjust information for a received SMP
* Return 0 if the SMP should be dropped
*/
enum smi_action smi_handle_dr_smp_recv(struct ib_smp *smp, u8 node_type,
int port_num, int phys_port_cnt)
I'll add a patch which cleans up those original comments and then update those
in this series.
>
> > + */
> > +enum smi_action opa_smi_handle_dr_smp_recv(struct opa_smp *smp, u8
> > node_type,
> > + int port_num, int phys_port_cnt)
> > +{
> > + return __smi_handle_dr_smp_recv(node_type, port_num, phys_port_cnt,
> > + &smp->hop_ptr, smp->hop_cnt,
> > + smp->route.dr.initial_path,
> > + smp->route.dr.return_path,
> > + opa_get_smp_direction(smp),
> > + smp->route.dr.dr_dlid ==
> > + OPA_LID_PERMISSIVE,
> > + smp->route.dr.dr_slid ==
> > + OPA_LID_PERMISSIVE);
> > +}
> > +
> > static inline
> > enum smi_forward_action __smi_check_forward_dr_smp(u8 hop_ptr, u8
> > hop_cnt,
> > u8 direction,
> > @@ -277,6 +311,16 @@ enum smi_forward_action
> > smi_check_forward_dr_smp(struct ib_smp *smp)
> > smp->dr_slid != IB_LID_PERMISSIVE);
> > }
> >
> > +enum smi_forward_action opa_smi_check_forward_dr_smp(struct opa_smp *smp)
> > +{
> > + return __smi_check_forward_dr_smp(smp->hop_ptr, smp->hop_cnt,
> > + opa_get_smp_direction(smp),
> > + smp->route.dr.dr_dlid ==
> > + OPA_LID_PERMISSIVE,
> > + smp->route.dr.dr_slid ==
> > + OPA_LID_PERMISSIVE);
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * Return the forwarding port number from initial_path for outgoing SMP
> > and
> > * from return_path for returning SMP
> > @@ -286,3 +330,13 @@ int smi_get_fwd_port(struct ib_smp *smp)
> > return (!ib_get_smp_direction(smp) ? smp->initial_path[smp-
> > >hop_ptr+1] :
> > smp->return_path[smp->hop_ptr-1]);
> > }
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Return the forwarding port number from initial_path for outgoing SMP
> > and
> > + * from return_path for returning SMP
> > + */
> > +int opa_smi_get_fwd_port(struct opa_smp *smp)
> > +{
> > + return !opa_get_smp_direction(smp) ? smp->route.dr.initial_path[smp-
> > >hop_ptr+1] :
> > + smp->route.dr.return_path[smp->hop_ptr-1];
> > +}
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/smi.h b/drivers/infiniband/core/smi.h
> > index aff96ba..e95c537 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/smi.h
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/smi.h
> > @@ -62,6 +62,9 @@ extern enum smi_action smi_handle_dr_smp_send(struct
> > ib_smp *smp,
> > * Return IB_SMI_HANDLE if the SMP should be handled by the local SMA/SM
> > * via process_mad
> > */
> > +/* NOTE: This is called on opa_smp's don't check fields which are not
> > common
> > + * between ib_smp and opa_smp
> > + */
>
> This comment suggests that the function is not correct for OPA. ?
This was a mistake left over from an early version of the patches. OPA
versions are in opa_smi.h. Those should be used.
Removed comment and fixed handle_outgoing_dr_smp.
>
> > static inline enum smi_action smi_check_local_smp(struct ib_smp *smp,
> > struct ib_device *device)
> > {
> > @@ -77,6 +80,9 @@ static inline enum smi_action smi_check_local_smp(struct
> > ib_smp *smp,
> > * Return IB_SMI_HANDLE if the SMP should be handled by the local SMA/SM
> > * via process_mad
> > */
> > +/* NOTE: This is called on opa_smp's don't check fields which are not
> > common
> > + * between ib_smp and opa_smp
> > + */
>
> Same comment
Same fix.
Ira
>
> > static inline enum smi_action smi_check_local_returning_smp(struct ib_smp
> > *smp,
> > struct ib_device *device)
> > {
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
