On 11/13/2017 9:53 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 11:41:40PM +0200, Yishai Hadas wrote:
+.BI "struct ibv_pd *ibv_alloc_parent_domain(struct ibv_context "*context" ", struct ibv_domain_init_attr " "*attr");
+.sp
+.BI "int ibv_dealloc_parent_domain(struct ibv_pd " "*pd");
I don't think we should have a dealloc for this, since it is ibv_pd it
should go through the normal ibv_dealloc_pd. Having two deletors for
the same type is too hard to use.
I'm fine with that, just to be clear here, the application will still
need to call twice for ibv_dealloc_pd() once to free the parent domain
collection and later to free the protection name, this will make it
fully symmetric from allocation/free point of view.
--
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
