On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Sasha Khapyorsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Sure; that's the tradeoff. I doubt the code size difference is significant. >> 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? Any of the non record ones but AFAIT the only one of those going through this code is InformInfo. -- 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
