Smith, Stan wrote: > <snip...> > > Following discussion is tangential to Hal's patch. > > Last night I came across an curious discovery. > sizeof(ib_inform_info_t) == 36. > sizeof(ib_inform_info_record_t) == 64. > > My debug version of 'osmtest -f v' trips CL_ASSERT() in > ib_get_attr_offset() osmteset.c::osmtest_informinfo_request()for > ib_get_attr_offset(rec), where rec is ib_inform_info_t. > > The winOFED ib_types.h & OFED ib_types.h match w.r.t. definitions for > ib_inform_info_t & ib_inform_info_record_t. > > Question: should ib_inform_info_t be 8-byte aligned with padding in > ib_inform_info_record_t adjusted or should we remove the CL_ASSERT() > from ib_get_attr_offset()? > > stan.
According to the IB spec, ib_inform_info_t is not 8-byte aligned, so removing the CL_ASSERT() makes sense. Sorry about extra work incurred, I thought I had tested all cases. stan. -- 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
