halr> On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 15:20, James Lentini wrote: halr> > halr> [kdapl CM] Fix endian conversions of service ID halr> > halr> Problem pointed out by James Lentini halr> > halr> halr> > halr> Signed-off-by: Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> halr> > halr> halr> > halr> Index: dapl_openib_cm.c halr> > halr> =================================================================== halr> > halr> -- dapl_openib_cm.c (revision 2468) halr> > halr> +++ dapl_openib_cm.c (working copy) halr> > halr> @@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ halr> > halr> if (conn->dapl_path.mtu > IB_MTU_1024) halr> > halr> conn->dapl_path.mtu = IB_MTU_1024; halr> > halr> halr> > halr> - conn->param.service_id = be64_to_cpu(conn->service_id); halr> > halr> + conn->param.service_id = conn->service_id; halr> > halr> > With the change to dapl_ib_connect below, the conn->service_id is in halr> > CPU byte order at this point. The conn->param is a ib_cm_req_param halr> > structure. The comment describing this structure's service_id field halr> > says that it should be in network (big endian) byte order. halr> > halr> > So... halr> > halr> > halr> conn->param.primary_path = &conn->dapl_path; halr> > halr> conn->param.alternate_path = NULL; halr> > halr> halr> > halr> @@ -445,8 +445,7 @@ halr> > halr> conn->param.local_cm_response_timeout = halr> > halr> DAPL_OPENIB_CM_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT; halr> > halr> conn->param.max_cm_retries = DAPL_OPENIB_MAX_CM_RETRIES; halr> > halr> halr> > halr> - memcpy(&conn->service_id, &remote_conn_qual, sizeof halr> > halr> conn->service_id); halr> > halr> - halr> > halr> + conn->service_id = be64_to_cpu(remote_conn_qual); halr> > halr> > ...that makes me think we should change the line above to halr> > halr> > conn->service_id = remote_conn_qual; halr> > halr> > and require that consumer's specify their connection qualifier values halr> > in network byte order here and ... halr> halr> I think the convention OpenIB has been using is to supply parameters in halr> CPU endian but it can work either way.
The comments in ib_cm.h say that service id parameters should be in network byte order. Are these incorrect? halr> halr> > halr> conn->remote_ia_address = remote_ia_address; halr> > halr> conn->dapl_comp.fn = &dapl_rt_comp_handler; halr> > halr> conn->dapl_comp.context = conn; halr> > halr> @@ -627,7 +626,7 @@ halr> > halr> } halr> > halr> halr> > halr> status = ib_cm_listen(sp_ptr->cm_srvc_handle, halr> > halr> - be64_to_cpu(sp_ptr->conn_qual), 0); halr> > halr> + cpu_to_be64(sp_ptr->conn_qual), 0); halr> > halr> > ... do the same here. What do you think? halr> halr> _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
