From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladimir Sokolovsky Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/2] Add support for enhanced atomic operations Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:32:51 +0200 Message-ID: <4BA0F623.1050606@dev.mellanox.co.il> References: <20100310155749.GA25964@vlad-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Roland Dreier Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E5kon_Bugge?= , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Roland Dreier wrote: > > Hence, I think it would be cleaner if a new capability, > > masked_atomic_cap, were introduced, using the original definitions > > (NONE, HCA, GLOB). > > Vlad, what do you think about that? The more I think about it, the > cleaner this seems to me. And it doesn't even consume a device > capability flag bit, which is a nice bonus. Hi Roland, Do you propose to use IB_ATOMIC_GLOB instead of IB_ATOMIC_HCA while setting atomic capability in the code below? props->atomic_cap = dev->dev->caps.flags & MLX4_DEV_CAP_FLAG_ATOMIC ? IB_ATOMIC_HCA : IB_ATOMIC_NONE; Or add IB_MASKED_ATOMIC to ib_atomic_cap enum and use this one instead of IB_ATOMIC_HCA? All this, of course, comes to replace setting IB_DEVICE_MASKED_ATOMIC for device capability. Thanks, Vladimir -- 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