On May 20, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Hefty, Sean wrote: >>> mad_agent_priv->agent.mr = ib_get_dma_mr(port_priv->qp_info[qpn].qp- >>> pd, >>> IB_ACCESS_LOCAL_WRITE); >>> >>> in which case it may be safer to check for the NULL pointer. Can you >> confirm if this was the spot? >> >> Yes it was that spot. I did think of that today after I sent the patch. >> >> Do you think it would be safer just to check for both pointers QP0 and 1 >> (depending on the registration)? > > Yes, it seems safer and easier to maintain if we just validated the pointer. > > - Sean
New patch attached. Ira
0001-Return-EPROTONOSUPPORT-when-an-RDMA-device-lacks-the.patch
Description: Binary data
