Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:39:03 -0500 | From | Tom Tucker <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 19/27] IB/Verbs: Use management helper cap_iw_cm() |
| |
On 4/20/15 11:19 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:51:58AM -0500, Tom Tucker wrote: >> On 4/20/15 10:16 AM, Michael Wang wrote: >>> On 04/20/2015 04:00 PM, Steve Wise wrote: >>>> On 4/20/2015 3:40 AM, Michael Wang wrote: >>> [snip] >>>>> diff --git a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h >>>>> index 6805e3e..e4999f6 100644 >>>>> +++ b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h >>>>> @@ -1818,6 +1818,21 @@ static inline int cap_ib_cm(struct ib_device *device, u8 port_num) >>>>> return rdma_ib_or_iboe(device, port_num); >>>>> } >>>>> +/** >>>>> + * cap_iw_cm - Check if the port of device has the capability IWARP >>>>> + * Communication Manager. >>>>> + * >>>>> + * @device: Device to be checked >>>>> + * @port_num: Port number of the device >>>>> + * >>>>> + * Return 0 when port of the device don't support IWARP >>>>> + * Communication Manager. >>>>> + */ >>>>> +static inline int cap_iw_cm(struct ib_device *device, u8 port_num) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + return rdma_tech_iwarp(device, port_num); >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> int ib_query_gid(struct ib_device *device, >>>>> u8 port_num, int index, union ib_gid *gid); >>>> iWARP devices _must_ support the IWCM so cap_iw_cm() is not really useful. >>> Sean suggested to add this helper paired with cap_ib_cm(), may be there are >>> some consideration on maintainability? >>> >>> Me too also prefer this way to make the code more readable ;-) >> It's more consistent, but not necessarily more readable -- if by >> readability we mean understanding. >> >> If the reader knows how the transports work, then the reader would >> be confused by the addition of a check that is always true. For the >> reader that doesn't know, the addition of the check implies that the >> support is optional, which it is not. > No, it says this code is concerned with the unique parts of iWarp > related to CM, not the other unique parts of iWarp. The check isn't > aways true, it is just always true on iWarp devices. > > That became the problem with the old way of just saying 'is iWarp' > (and others). There are too many differences, the why became lost in > many places. > > There are now too many standards, and several do not have public docs, > to keep relying on a mess of 'is standard' tests.
You're right Jason, this gets called with the device handle so it's only true for iwarp.
> Jason > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| |