> > @@ -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..)
I got so completely lost in what was agreed upon and what wasn't. I don't care much either way, but I don't see a clear advantage of avoiding the link time dependency. -- 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
