> I don't care much either way, but I don't see a clear advantage of avoiding > the link time dependency. We decided that supporting new apps with old library is desirable, thus the wrapper+func pointer is required.
Tzahi On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Hefty, Sean <[email protected]> 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..) > > 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 -- 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
