> With the proposed patches in place, how do you know if masked atomics
> are implemented or not? Guess apps need to know this information
> already on todays HCAs.
>From the patch:
> @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ enum ib_device_cap_flags {
> IB_DEVICE_UD_TSO = (1<<19),
> IB_DEVICE_MEM_MGT_EXTENSIONS = (1<<21),
> IB_DEVICE_BLOCK_MULTICAST_LOOPBACK = (1<<22),
> + IB_DEVICE_MASKED_ATOMIC = (1<<23),
> };
> Hence, I think it would be cleaner if a new capability,
> masked_atomic_cap, were introduced, using the original definitions
> (NONE, HCA, GLOB).
Actually that does seem more orthogonal to me.
--
Roland Dreier <[email protected]>
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--
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
