Re: [PATCH 4/8] livibverbs: Add support for XRC SRQs
From: Jason Gunthorpe <hidden>
Date: 2012-09-24 20:34:02
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2012-09-25 · Re: [PATCH 4/8] livibverbs: Add support for XRC SRQs · Tzahi Oved <hidden>
- 2012-09-24 · RE: [PATCH 4/8] livibverbs: Add support for XRC SRQs · Hefty, Sean <hidden>
- 2012-09-20 · [PATCH 4/8] livibverbs: Add support for XRC SRQs · Hefty, Sean <hidden>
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 09:43:06PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote:
quoted hunk
@@ -1052,6 +1084,9 @@ static inline int ibv_req_notify_cq(struct ibv_cq *cq, int solicited_only) struct ibv_srq *ibv_create_srq(struct ibv_pd *pd, struct ibv_srq_init_attr *srq_init_attr); +struct ibv_srq *ibv_create_srq_ex(struct ibv_pd *pd, + struct ibv_srq_init_attr_ex *srq_init_attr_ex); +
Just to be clear here, the original proposals for this had an inline wrapper indirecting through a function pointer here to avoid a link-time dependency - is that something people still want? If we are OK with a link time dependency, then do we need the new symbol name or can we just symbol version ibv_create_srq ? (accepting there are small problems with that..) Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html