On 05/04/2015 08:46 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 02:14:57AM -0400, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Use the new Core Capability bits instead of inferring this support from the
>> protocol.
>
> Does this really need to be a seperate patch? At least for the
> core_cap_flags parts it makes no sense to change those lines twice
I think I missed this patch series, and I can't find all the 5 patch in
archive too...
If there are not much argument on this proposal, then we can include
the changes and make them one patch set.
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
>> - props->core_cap_flags = RDMA_CORE_CAP_PROT_IB;
>> + props->core_cap_flags = RDMA_CORE_CAP_PROT_IB | RDMA_CORE_CAP_IB_MAD;
>
> Hurm,
>
> Maybe add some macros to help this out, document the standard that
> the port implements:
>
> #define RDMA_CORE_PORT_IB_IBA_v1_2 (RDMA_CORE_CAP_PROT_IB | RDMA_CORE_CAP_IB_MAD)
> #define RDMA_CORE_PORT_ROCEE_IBA_v1_2_A15 ..
> #define RDMA_CORE_PORT_ROCEE_IBA_v1_3_A16 ..
>
>> static inline int cap_ib_mad(struct ib_device *device, u8 port_num)
>> {
>> - return rdma_ib_or_iboe(device, port_num);
>> + return !!(device->core_cap_flags[port_num] & RDMA_CORE_CAP_IB_MAD);
>
>
> 'bool' is OK in the kernel, just use that instead of !! - in fact all of
> thse cap returns should return bool. Michael should fix that in his
> series too.
>
> Jason
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
