[openib-general] Re: [PATCH] Don't require create_ah and modify_port provider methods

[Steve Wise]

On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 22:33 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Quoting r. Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at mellanox.co.il>:
> > But we can have separate static ENOSYS stubs for each field, and fill them in
> > instead of NULL pointers on device registration.
> > 
> > BTW, would be good for IB devices too, and will let us kill a bunch
> > of checks spread over the core right now.
> 
> On the other hand, if I want to know whether a device implements
> a function, its much better to compare the function pointer to NULL
> than call it and check the return status.
> For example, its nice that I can just check the alloc_fmr pointer
> and know the device implements FMRs, so I can't use that
> optimization.
> 
> All things considered - I like it how it is today. Let's just add
> checks in core for functions that iWarp misses - this is never
> data-path stuff.
> 
> So I'm fine with the way Steve did it.


Roland?  Do you need another patch from me without the ah changes?  Or
will you just apply it either as-is or remove the ah stuff yourself?


STevo.