On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:09:58 -0700 Jason Gunthorpe <jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 06:00:51PM -0700, Hefty, Sean wrote: > > > Can we at least agree on the usage of these structures first? Are the > > > constants going to be in host or network byte order? > > > > I was simply suggesting to 'move' some of the existing structures and > > defines. > > But they are horrible and little used outside opensm right now, you > really want to commit to that forever? Not everything is horrible. And if it is we can fix it. But I think defining "yet another" header with the same functionality is worse. Like it or not ib_types is there. If you don't remove/fix it, someone will find it and use it. How does that make things cleaner just because there is something "clean" somewhere else? Someone will find ib_types use it. I still feel this is the best first step at getting rid of ib_types.h (at least as it currently stands). Ira > > Jason -- Ira Weiny Math Programmer/Computer Scientist Lawrence Livermore National Lab 925-423-8008 wei...@llnl.gov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
