On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 19:05, Pradeep Satyanarayana wrote: > My understanding is that the refcnt will still need to be held (even > after this change) even if SDP would not poke at IPoIB's private data. > Is that true?
Yes, that's an independent issue. > Moreover there was discussion about getting this data from the CM REQ > private data. So, what is the exact rationale for adding this to the > net_device structure? To get at the ib_device, port, and PKey which are needed for a subsequent SA path record request. -- Hal > Pradeep > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/03/2005 02:50:21 PM: > > > On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 17:35, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > Hal> We will have this shortly. I have been waiting for this > to > > > Hal> propose the changes to SDP et al. > > > > > > OK, but I don't think it makes sense to merge this upstream until > > > there is in-tree code that will use it. > > > > I wanted to get this in so I could add the code to IPoIB to use this > so SDP > > and others no longer poke at IPoIB's private data. This is a small > > change. Should this change be made locally (in OpenIB) first (and > we'll > > have our own modified netdevice.h for a short time) ? > > > > -- 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 _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
