RE: [PATCH rdma-next 31/31] IB/cm: Refactor to avoid setting path record software only fields

[Parav Pandit <parav-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Or Gerlitz [mailto:gerlitz.or@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:13 PM
> To: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>; linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org; Hefty,
> Sean <sean.hefty@intel.com>; Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 31/31] IB/cm: Refactor to avoid setting path
> record software only fields
> 
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote:
> > From: Parav Pandit <parav@mellanox.com>
> >
> > When path ah_attr initialization from path record fails,
> > ib_cm_send_rej() uses av.ah_attr fields to send out reject message. In
> > such cases initialization of path record software fields is not
> > needed. Code is simplified for same.
> 
> is "Code is simplified for same"  cut in the middle, I fail to understand the
> sentence.
> 
Code is simplified to avoid such initialization.

> 
> > Additionally in current code in cm_req_handler, when ib_get_cached_gid
> > fails for a given sgid_index of the GID of the GRH of the incoming CM
> > MAD, error code 12 is sent. This error code refers to primary GID in
> > incoming CM REQ and not for the GID in in MAD packet.
> > Therefore code is refactored to send code 5 (unsupported request) for
> > such error.
> 
> You do two logical changes in one patch, doesn't seem right to me.
Both logical changes are in same function few lines apart around GID check.
So Hal and I continued to have in one patch.