On Thursday 22 April 2010 21:03, Roland Dreier wrote: > So I'm looking at merging this, and I'm wondering about one thing. > Seems like it's just a mistake but I want to make sure I understand > properly: > > > @@ -1078,6 +1079,7 @@ ssize_t ib_uverbs_create_qp(struct ib_uverbs_file > *file, > > goto err_put; > > } > > > > + attr.create_flags = 0; > > attr.event_handler = ib_uverbs_qp_event_handler; > > This looks redundant, because this function already sets create_flags to > 0 a few lines later. So I think this line is just a remnant from some > other patch. You're correct.
> > But then ib_uverbs_create_xrc_rcv_qp() doesn't set create_flags before > the call to device->create_xrc_rcv_qp() -- which maybe is OK, since that > function is not going to look at create_flags right now, but for the > future we should probably set it to 0, right? Can't hurt. > Also it's not 100% clear to me why the low-level driver needs a special > create_xrc_rcv_qp method, rather than having uverbs just call create_qp > with the right parameters. I did not want to have the verbs layer dictate implementation details to the low-level driver. It is more correct, in my opinion, to have each low-level driver decide for itself on implementation. Therefore, the separate method. However, please note that I re-use the qp_create_common() method in mlx4_ib_create_xrc_rcv_qp. > But I haven't looked throught carefully to > see the differences between eg query_xrc_rcv_qp() vs query_qp() methods. > Same comment. > - R. -- 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
