On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Sasha Khapyorsky <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08:40 Wed 09 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote: >> >> I think the use of ib_get_attr_offset is being "overused". I'd rather >> see this patch used as it is the simplest way to address that rather >> than conditionalize ib_get_attr_offset on the SA attribute or would >> you rather see a patch along those lines ? > > I just think that if the assertion is incorrect (and ib_get_attr_offset() > is generic function) we need to remove this. That is simplest.
The downside is that it loses the ability to catch SA records which were not properly padded out. It seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me to not set this field on the transmit side when it's going to be ignored on receive (treat it like a reserved field for this case) and keep the ability to catch the SA record issue which has bit the community a number of times. The only other approach I see to maintain this is to add an additional calling parameter (allribute ID) to get_attr_offset and then inside check the attribute ID and return 0 for those SA attributes. -- Hal > Sasha > -- 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
