On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 09:43:06PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote: > @@ -1052,6 +1084,9 @@ static inline int ibv_req_notify_cq(struct ibv_cq *cq, > int solicited_only) > struct ibv_srq *ibv_create_srq(struct ibv_pd *pd, > struct ibv_srq_init_attr *srq_init_attr); > > +struct ibv_srq *ibv_create_srq_ex(struct ibv_pd *pd, > + struct ibv_srq_init_attr_ex > *srq_init_attr_ex); > +
Just to be clear here, the original proposals for this had an inline wrapper indirecting through a function pointer here to avoid a link-time dependency - is that something people still want? If we are OK with a link time dependency, then do we need the new symbol name or can we just symbol version ibv_create_srq ? (accepting there are small problems with that..) Jason -- 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
