[ofa-general] Re: [PATCH] osm: Converting the the C++ code to C inosm_ucast_lash.c

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

> Quoting Hal Rosenstock <halr at voltaire.com>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] osm: Converting the the C++ code to C inosm_ucast_lash.c
> 
> On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 07:12, Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
> > Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 03:40, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >>> Quoting Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn at dev.mellanox.co.il>:
> > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] osm: Converting the the C++ code to C in osm_ucast_lash.c
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi Hal.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Converting the the C++ code to C.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Please apply both to trunk and to 1.2
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn at dev.mellanox.co.il>
> > >>>> NAK.
> > >>>> 1. I don't see any C++ here.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2. Why do we need this on ofed branch?
> > >>>>    Only bugfixes should go there. What bug does it fix?
> > >>> There are 3 things in this patch:
> > >>> 1. int i -> uint16_t i
> > >>> 2. Moving variable declaration (switch_bitmap) to the beginning 
> > >>>    of the function (currently, it is declared after OSM_LOG_ENTER)
> > >>> 3. Changing C99 dynamically allocated array to the old style.
> > >>>
> > >>> First two can be categorized as bugs.
> > >>>
> > >>> The third one is for compiler on windows.
> > >>>
> > >>> Each of these elements breaks OSM compilation on Windows.
> > >>>
> > >>> If we don't include either of these, then OFED 1.2 OpenSM compilation
> > >>> on windows will be broken. 
> > >> Ultimately, whether to merge this this and where is up to the maintainer.  But I
> > >> note that OFED 1.2 goals do not include windows builds.
> > > 
> > > While not a formal OFED 1.2 goal, doesn't this depend on whether there
> > > is intended to be a Windows equivalent to the OFED 1.2 OpenSM ?
> > 
> > I'm not aware of any plans for windows equivalent to the OFED 1.2 OpenSM,
> 
> Should there be ?

Isn't that what we need to know to decide whether to merge this patch?

> master may be less stable and certainly is likely to
> be less tested than OFED 1.2 at any point in time.

I guess openib-windows guys will be able to branch off from ofed 1.2 branch
if they like. But even if you fix compilation issues on ofed 1.2 now, it's unlikely
a windows release won't include other changes as compared to the linux one.
So why bother?

-- 
MST