On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 02:10:51PM -0400, ira.weiny wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:55:29AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 02:16:31AM -0400, ira.weiny wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:45:21PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Move HFI1 IOCTL declarations to rdma_user_ioctl.h file. > > > > > > I have not tried with the patch but I'm 99% sure this will break the PSM2 > > > library build which includes hfi1_user.h. > > > > > > This is one of those things I have pondered in the past. Most of the rdma > > > libraries don't actually use these definitions directly. PSM2 does. > > > > I'm not so convinced about it. > > "#include <rdma/rdma_user_ioctl.h>" was added to hfi1_user.h to share > > all definitions. PSM2 library will see it. > > Ok I see it now. Sorry it was late. > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what other libraries do. > > > > > > In the final patch of this series you admit that the name changes in that patch > > > will break userspace which uses the defines directly. Can we, should we, do > > > that? > > > > I'm talking about __NUM() macros. > > > > Do you really use __NUM(ASSIGN_CTXT) in user application? Why did you do > > it? You supposed to use HFI1_IOCTL_ASSIGN_CTXT instead. > > Your commit message says "... and MAD indexes were renamed. It has the > potential to break application which use these defines directly." > > I took that at face value. I've taken a closer look ... I see now that neither > the numbers nor the define names changed so ok, my mistake. Sorry for inconvenience, I'll update commit message, so it will better reflect reality. Thanks
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
