On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:44:55PM +0200, Yishai Hadas wrote:
> On 1/9/2017 7:02 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 06:46:33PM +0200, Yishai Hadas wrote:
> >
> > > In case we want to do it in this layer I would vote on using memset at the
> > > beginning of that function to prevent repeating this for any new field. Your
> > > last patch in that area could do it as well.
> >
> > Sounds like you should clean this all up and use = {} consistently in
> > the providers and drop the explicit = 0.
>
> We can add some pre-patch to the series to make the
> ibv_cmd_modify/ibv_cmd_modify_ex behaves similarly by cleaning up the
> explicit = 0 and use = {} in all the providers.
Yes, please do it and send that patch as standalone cleanup before
series, so we will be able to apply it without waiting till packet
pacing is accepted.
Thanks
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
