On 04/01/13 17:25, Or Gerlitz wrote:
Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote:
If you have a patched up dhcp server (and dhclient),
Could you be more specific, I assume you refer to the ISC dhcp bits,
which version and which patches?
Any version of dhcp server, and the improved-xid and lpf-ib
Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote:
If you have a patched up dhcp server (and dhclient),
Could you be more specific, I assume you refer to the ISC dhcp bits,
which version and which patches? AFAIK they don't give you access to
their source repo but rather only to drops plus possibly patches
On 03/26/2013 02:16 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:46:28AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
Checkpatch recommends since some time to use sizeof(e) instead of sizeof e,
isn't it ?
I actually prefer sizeof e since sizeof is an operator, not a
function. sizeof(e) looks just
If you have a patched up dhcp server (and dhclient), they will use
AF_PACKET/SOCK_DGRAM pair to send dhcp packets over IPoIB. This has
worked since forever if you use OFED kernels or one of the distribution
kernels. However, when testing an upstream kernel, it has been broken
for a very long
On 03/26/13 17:24, Doug Ledford wrote:
If you have a patched up dhcp server (and dhclient), they will use
AF_PACKET/SOCK_DGRAM pair to send dhcp packets over IPoIB. This has
worked since forever if you use OFED kernels or one of the distribution
kernels. However, when testing an upstream
Checkpatch recommends since some time to use sizeof(e) instead of sizeof e,
isn't it ?
I actually prefer sizeof e since sizeof is an operator, not a
function. sizeof(e) looks just as silly as return(e) to me.
I'll apply this patch soon, it's a good catch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On 03/26/2013 12:46 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
Checkpatch recommends since some time to use sizeof(e) instead of sizeof e,
isn't it ?
I actually prefer sizeof e since sizeof is an operator, not a
function. sizeof(e) looks just as silly as return(e) to me.
I'll apply this patch soon, it's a
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:46:28AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
Checkpatch recommends since some time to use sizeof(e) instead of sizeof e,
isn't it ?
I actually prefer sizeof e since sizeof is an operator, not a
function. sizeof(e) looks just as silly as return(e) to me.
Sizeof is used