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

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 08:18, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > 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?

to OFED 1.2, yes.

> > 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.

I'm not sure what changes you are referring to but I would think the
more tested the base is, the easier this is and fewer changes are
involved.

> So why bother?

You're right that it's probably not worth the effort.

-- Hal