On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 15:09, Krishna Kumar wrote:
> I am not entirely sure that I understand the bitwise operator being
> used in the code. Following patch is assuming that I have got it
> right :-).
>
> thanks,
>
> - KK
>
> diff -ruNp 5/mad.c 6/mad.c
> --- 5/mad.c 2004-11-02 12:07:51.000000000 -0800
> +++ 6/mad.c 2004-11-02 12:08:32.000000000 -0800
> @@ -537,9 +537,13 @@ static int check_method_table(struct ib_
> {
> int i;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS; i++)
> - if (method->agent[i])
> - return 1;
> + for (i = find_first_bit(mad_reg_req->method_mask, IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS);
> + i < IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS;
> + i = find_next_bit(mad_reg_req->method_mask, IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS,
> + 1+i)) {
> + /* if we entered the loop, we have found an agent bit set */
> + return 1;
> + }
> return 0;
> }
This is no longer checking the method table. It is checking the
registration request. Also, a pointer to the registration request
would need to be passed into this routine if it is to be used.
> @@ -561,11 +565,13 @@ static void remove_methods_mad_agent(str
> {
> int i;
>
> - /* Remove any methods for this mad agent */
> - for (i = 0; i < IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS; i++) {
> - if (method->agent[i] == agent) {
> - method->agent[i] = NULL;
> - }
> + /* Remove all methods for this mad agent */
> + for (i = find_first_bit(mad_reg_req->method_mask, IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS);
> + i < IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS;
> + i = find_next_bit(mad_reg_req->method_mask, IB_MGMT_MAX_METHODS,
> + 1+i)) {
> + BUG_ON(method->agent[i] != agent);
> + method->agent[i] = NULL;
> }
> }
Same compilation issue as above:
A pointer to the registration request would need to be passed into this
routine if it is to be used.
-- Hal
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
