Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 169744
Review Request: libmthca - Mellanox hardware support for libibverbs
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:14 EST
Spec Name or Url: http://www.digitalvampire.org/fedora/libmthca.spec
SRPM Name or Url:
libmthca provides a device-specific userspace driver for Mellanox HCAs
(MT23108 InfiniHost and MT25208 InfiniHost III Ex) for use with the
I just posted a review request for my libibverbs package in bug 169743.
I'd like to review this package but I don't have any Mellanox IB hardware to
test it on. So unless someone says otherwise, I'm going to assume that its OK
to review based upon all of the criteria *except* actually running/using it.
That is okay, assuming that the package maintainer has ways to test
this software release and subsequent releases, too.
Yes, I have lots of InfiniBand hardware to test with. I am also the upstream
maintainer of this package.
Just so I'm clear: should I consider the libmthca package approved? Or am I
still waiting for Ed's real review?
Hi Roland, per the guidelines:
I'll do a review and send an approval (or not) as soon as I have some free
time. Probably early next week. Please be patient, I'm just a volunteer
who has a busy day job, etc. ;-)
No worries and no rush -- I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't sitting here
waiting for approval that you had already given.
New Spec: http://www.digitalvampire.org/fedora/libmthca.spec
New SRPM: http://www.digitalvampire.org/fedora/libmthca-1.0-0.2.rc4.src.rpm
* Wed Oct 5 2005 Roland Dreier <email@example.com> - 1.0-0.2.rc4
- Update to upstream 1.0-rc4 release
Hi Roland, heres a quick review:
perhaps these two need work or perhaps [more likely? ;-)] I just don't
- The devel package includes a static library but there are no header
files -- I assume thats because this is a "plug-in library" for
libibverbs and it uses the libibverbs-devel headers so it doesn't
actually have to provide any headers itself, right? If so, thats
fine but then you should probably have libmthca-devel Require:
the libibverbs-devel package
- a shared library is installed but the usual post/postun ldconfig
scripts are not run -- is that really OK?
+ source matches upstream using:
+ spec is simple, clean, and readable
+ license is OK and correctly included
+ builds in mock on FC4
+ *.la files correctly removed
+ no errors or warnings from rpmlint
And if someone donates a few compatible IB host adapters and an IB switch,
I'll gladly test this package on a few cluster nodes running Fedora. ;-)
> - The devel package includes a static library but there are no header
> files -- I assume thats because this is a "plug-in library" for
> libibverbs and it uses the libibverbs-devel headers so it doesn't
> actually have to provide any headers itself, right? If so, thats
> fine but then you should probably have libmthca-devel Require:
> the libibverbs-devel package
Right, there are no header files because nothing except libibverbs
calls functions in libibverbs. The static library is just there because
some people have found it useful to link everything staticly into their
app (libibverbs finds static libmthca via dlopen(NULL, )).
You're probably right that libmthca-devel needs to Require: libibverbs-devel,
since libmthca does call libibverbs functions.
> - a shared library is installed but the usual post/postun ldconfig
> scripts are not run -- is that really OK?
Do you mean /usr/lib/infiniband/mthca.so? Again, that's a "plug-in"
that's dlopen()ed by libibverbs, so nothing directly links to it. So
I don't think we need to do any ldconfig stuff, right?
Hi Roland, that makes sense and tanks for the explanation!