On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:53:52 -0700
Hal Rosenstock <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/16/2011 2:10 PM, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > - printf("MCMemberRecord member dump:\n"
> > - "\t\tMGID....................%s\n"
> > - "\t\tMlid....................0x%X\n"
> > - "\t\tPortGid.................%s\n"
> > - "\t\tScopeState..............0x%X\n"
> > - "\t\tProxyJoin...............0x%X\n"
> > - "\t\tNodeDescription.........%s\n",
> > - inet_ntop(AF_INET6, p_mcmr->mgid.raw, gid_str,
> > - sizeof gid_str),
> > - cl_ntoh16(p_mcmr->mlid),
> > - inet_ntop(AF_INET6, p_mcmr->port_gid.raw,
> > - gid_str2, sizeof gid_str2),
> > - p_mcmr->scope_state, p_mcmr->proxy_join, node_name);
> > + dump_one_mcmember_record(data);
>
> This will print more info per MC member with much of it (group related)
> repeated. Is there some need for the additional info or is this just for
> code reuse ?
"need"; I guess not. But I thought it was odd that the information was
different for the 2 query methods. There is nothing in the documentation or
help output which indicates the output would be different.
That said I do see what you mean regarding the amount of data returned. I
figured most users were probably grepping this output anyway, as on a large
fabric both methods return a sizable amount of data.
> If it's the latter, I would prefer to not see it change or
> add an additional parameter to dump_one_mcmember_record as to the
> specific fields to print.
Yea, the most useful output of "-m" is when used with the optional MLID value.
Ok, For now I will reject the patch. ;-)
Ira
>
> -- Hal
>
> > + printf("\t\tNodeDescription.........%s\n", node_nam
>
--
Ira Weiny
Math Programmer/Computer Scientist
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
925-423-8008
[email protected]
--
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
