From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/2] Add support for enhanced atomic operations Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:59:13 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20100310155749.GA25964@vlad-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22?= =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=A5kon?= Bugge"'s message of "Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:29:56 +0100") Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=A5kon?= Bugge Cc: vlad-LDSdmyG8hGV8YrgS2mwiifqBs+8SCbDb@public.gmane.org, linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > Did you consider my input in http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org/msg02803.html wrt. to these enhancements? I think we can worry about that if/when an HCA comes along that supports global atomics for ordinary atomics but not enhanced atomics. Although perhaps it would be cleaner to change the atomic_cap enum to: /* * IB_ATOMIC_NONE: no atomic capability * IB_ATOMIC_HCA: all ops are atomic within HCA * IB_ATOMIC_GLOB: standard ops atomic with respect to all memory ops; masked ops atomic within HCA * IB_ATOMIC_GLOB_MASKED: all ops atomic with respect to all * memory ops */ enum ib_atomic_cap { IB_ATOMIC_NONE, IB_ATOMIC_HCA, IB_ATOMIC_GLOB, IB_ATOMIC_GLOB_MASKED }; (with better wording for the comments) Thoughts? - R. -- Roland Dreier For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html -- 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