[ofw] [Patch][IPoIB_NDIS6_CM] Fix at __ipoib_port_down()

[Alex Naslednikov]

There is an old patch that probably was missed.
Can I commit it while putting the function call after the variable declarations ?

-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Stan [mailto:stan.smith at intel.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 7:16 PM
To: Alex Naslednikov; ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: RE: [ofw] [Patch][IPoIB_NDIS6_CM] Fix at __ipoib_port_down()


-----Original Message-----
From: ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:ofw-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of Alex Naslednikov
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 6:07 AM
To: ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
Subject: [ofw] [Patch][IPoIB_NDIS6_CM] Fix at __ipoib_port_down()

>> We still have a difference between MLNX and OFW trunks.
>> I continue to resend patches that were not applied for unknown reasons.

This is a new (never seen before) patch.

Why do you place the port_down() call before variable declarations?
This is contrary to the ipoib coding style?



--

Fixing the situation when adapter remains to be in connected state even after cable disconnect.
That was because __ipoib_port_down called __ipoib_reset_all that disables and then enables the status
Signed-off by: Alexander Naslednikov

Index: ipoib_adapter.cpp
===================================================================
--- ipoib_adapter.cpp   (revision 5258)
+++ ipoib_adapter.cpp   (revision 5259)
@@ -585,6 +585,7 @@
 static inline void __ipoib_get_down(
        IN ipoib_adapter_t              *p_adapter)
 {
+       ipoib_port_down( p_adapter->p_port );

        NDIS_LINK_STATE         link_state;
        NDIS_STATUS_INDICATION  status_indication;
@@ -608,7 +609,7 @@
        IPOIB_PRINT( TRACE_LEVEL_INFORMATION, IPOIB_DBG_INIT,
                ("Link DOWN!\n") );

-       ipoib_port_down( p_adapter->p_port );
+
 }

 static ib_api_status_t
_______________________________________________
ofw mailing list
ofw at lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw