On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 19:50, Sean Hefty wrote: > Hal Rosenstock wrote: > >>Can we just remove this field and > >>use the sgid to locate the correct device structure in the kernel, or > >>fail if it cannot be located? > > > > That seems like a good idea. > > Quickly skimming through the code I couldn't easily locate where AT > maintained a > device list, or how it retrieved the device pointer.
AT tracks IPoIB netdevices rather than IB devices but one can get at the IB device through the ipoib_dev_priv structure which is available through the netdevice. > > Won't AT still be needed under the new CM abstraction for IB ? I guess > > the answer is unclear. It still seems to me that it should be fixed > > until there is something else to take its place. Do you concur ? > > Had the fix been easy (for me to figure out how to make anyway) I would have > submitted a patch. Something like AT is likely to be needed, but it's not > clear > how close the final version will be to what's there now. If we can at least > validate the device pointer, it may be good enough to continue using for the > time being. I think it is possible to validate the device pointer in the route rather than change the API. I'll work on a patch for this. -- 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
