[ofa-general] question regarding umad_recv

[Hal Rosenstock]

Hi Sasha,

On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 15:54 +0200, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> Hi Hal,
> 
> On 06:18 Mon 15 Oct     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > 
> > I don't recall as this is from a very very long time ago but in looking
> > at this, I agree with your assessment that it can be simplified (and
> > there appears to be no real need for what is contained in struct Port
> > other than the fd). The only downside I see is the subtle change in the
> > public umad_ APIs changing int portid -> int fd.
> 
> There is no API change at all - umad_open_port() still return unique
> integer descriptor as it was before. Here we are only changing
> undocumented (at least I'm not able to find any public description about
> what umad_open_port() should return) behavior of this API (by replacing
> mad device number as umad_open_port() return value, 

It's all the other APIs which say umad_xxx(int portid, ...) are now
umad_xxxx(int fd, ...). A subtle change.

> but if we want to
> support multiple open()s there is no choice - device number is not
> suitable for this).

Understood.

> > I suppose all the tools
> > would continue to work without change here even if libibumad were
> > changed underneath it, right ?
> 
> Right.
> 
> > BTW, when you do this, the umad man pages
> > should all be updated for this change.
> 
> I see only that umad_open_port.3 should be fixed - it says that return
> value is "0" on success, which is not correct anyway. Not really related
> to the patch. Do you see another places to fix in man?

Don't a number of them indicate int portid as an input parameter (and
this should now be int fd) ? Just grep for portid in those man pages...

-- Hal

> 
> Sasha
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openfabrics.org
> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
> 
> To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general