Hi Hal,
I didn't fix the argument to this routine, I was trying to understand if
the idea behind this will work, hence the RFC in the subject. Sorry for
creating the confusion. I was trying to understand if what I was assuming
is right or not.
The first part of the patch checks if any bit is set in the method_mask,
and if so, it means that a method (table?) is registered and hence it
returns error. Actually there might be a better way to check if the
bitmask is all-zero's and avoid the for loop, but I don't see any macros
for that, and I didn't want to use "if (method_mask)".
The add_mad_reg_req() code is doing :
/* Finally, add in methods being registered */
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)) {
(*method)->agent[i] = priv;
}
So the agent[0-128] is pointing to the priv when that particular bitmask
is set in the method_mask (exact same bit number is used as index in
agent).
Do you think this model is correct ? The Get/Set/Repress functions can be
checked faster by checking if the first/next bit being set rather than
going through the entire array of 128 agents, or in one case whether the
bitmask is zero or non-zero instead of looping 128 times. If this is true,
I will recreate the patch and compile before sending in the final patch.
thx,
- KK
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> 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
