On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 22:33 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Quoting r. Michael S. Tsirkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > But we can have separate static ENOSYS stubs for each field, and fill them > > in > > instead of NULL pointers on device registration. > > > > BTW, would be good for IB devices too, and will let us kill a bunch > > of checks spread over the core right now. > > On the other hand, if I want to know whether a device implements > a function, its much better to compare the function pointer to NULL > than call it and check the return status. > For example, its nice that I can just check the alloc_fmr pointer > and know the device implements FMRs, so I can't use that > optimization. > > All things considered - I like it how it is today. Let's just add > checks in core for functions that iWarp misses - this is never > data-path stuff. > > So I'm fine with the way Steve did it.
Roland? Do you need another patch from me without the ah changes? Or will you just apply it either as-is or remove the ah stuff yourself? STevo. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
