From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] livibverbs: Add support for XRC SRQs Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:34:02 -0600 Message-ID: <20120924203401.GB9472@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A8237346A8E801@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1828884A29C6694DAF28B7E6B8A8237346A8E801-P5GAC/sN6hmkrb+BlOpmy7fspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Hefty, Sean" Cc: "linux-rdma (linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org)" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 09:43:06PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote: > @@ -1052,6 +1084,9 @@ static inline int ibv_req_notify_cq(struct ibv_cq *cq, int solicited_only) > struct ibv_srq *ibv_create_srq(struct ibv_pd *pd, > struct ibv_srq_init_attr *srq_init_attr); > > +struct ibv_srq *ibv_create_srq_ex(struct ibv_pd *pd, > + struct ibv_srq_init_attr_ex *srq_init_attr_ex); > + Just to be clear here, the original proposals for this had an inline wrapper indirecting through a function pointer here to avoid a link-time dependency - is that something people still want? If we are OK with a link time dependency, then do we need the new symbol name or can we just symbol version ibv_create_srq ? (accepting there are small problems with that..) Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html