On 11:27 Wed 09 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > 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 is not run-time error, so I don't think that such sort of debugging is a main function of OpenSM. > 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. This will cost in extra code. > 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. Which SA attributes? 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
