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: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:44:31 +0300 Message-ID: <4BC2EB7F.20804@dev.mellanox.co.il> References: <20100310155749.GA25964@vlad-laptop> <4BA0F623.1050606@dev.mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BA0F623.1050606-LDSdmyG8hGV8YrgS2mwiifqBs+8SCbDb@public.gmane.org> 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 Vladimir Sokolovsky wrote: > 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 > > Hi Roland, Can you comment? 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