On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Smith, Stan <[email protected]> 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.
Those match the IBA spec (InformInfoRecord being padded whereas InformInfo is not). > 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-bye aligned with padding in > ib_inform_info_record_t adjusted or should we remove the CL_ASSERT() from > ib_get_attr_offset()? Why does osmtest need to call this routine ? I think most if not all of those calls should be removed. Attribute offset only needs setting when RMPP and most SA client invocations of things like Get and GetTable are not RMPP (response is). I know osmtest does some negative testing of SA like invalid methods for a given attribute. -- Hal > > 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
