[ofw] RE: x86 XP env - WSD & installsp fail to build, IPoIB fails to install.

[Smith, Stan]

Greetings,

BuildRelease.bat and makebin.bat have been modified to support the
required 14 builds for free/check, 3 architectures (x64, x86 & ia64) and
3 OS variants (WLH, WNET & XP(x86only))..... Progress?

WNET - x86, x64 & ia64 * (checked/free)
WLH - x86, x64 & ia64 * (checked/free)
WXP - x86 only * (checked/free).

Personally I like the idea of not building/including WSD for XP(x86);
installer already disallows WSD installation by not offering it as a
feature. A small tweak in the dirs file processing and/or Makefile to
skip the XPx86 wsd build along with installsp coupled with an
intelligent netipoib.inf that recognized XP & x86 to skip the wsd
install could work. 
I could live with an x86 specific version of netipoib.inf which does not
install ibwsd.dlll; makebin could handle this. Granted an intelligent
.inf is the preferred solution.

The installer will only install WXP binaries in an x86 XP system.
My understanding is wnet binaries are good for XP64.

Stan.





Fab Tillier wrote:
>> From: Tzachi Dar [mailto:tzachid at mellanox.co.il]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 8:49 AM
>> To: Fab Tillier; Smith, Stan
>> Cc: ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
>> Subject: RE: [ofw] RE: x86 XP env - WSD & installsp fail to build,
>> IPoIB fails to install. 
>> 
>> The problem was indeed in xp32 but WSD will not run in any version of
>> XP, so I guess that my fix is still correct.
> 
> <snip...>
> 
>> 2) Make sure that WSD will be built (without the other functions).
>> This is what I did. 
>> 
>> I'm fine with all options.
> 
> But what happens when someone installs the XP drivers on 2003?  They
> get improper behavior (perfmon registry entry stays around when it
> should be cleaned up?)  I think adding a XP-specific entry to the INF
> file that doesn't copy the WSD DLL would be better.   
> 
>>>> @@ -691,6 +693,11 @@
>>>>  {
>>>>         WSADATA wsd;
>>>> 
>>>> +#ifdef WINXP_BUILD
>>>> +       printf("WSD doesn't run on windows XP\n");
> 
> I missed this earlier - printf isn't appropriate here.
> 
>>>> +       return 1;
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +