On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:24, Roland Dreier wrote: > > Good point. At a minimum, the spec is unclear about this (if they are > > totally separate mechanisms). > > When is the spec ever clear? :) > > But I think the only interpretation that has a chance at matching the > current spec is to say that IsSMDisabled is not directly related to an > SM in the NOT-ACTIVE state. > > Maybe it's worth asking the WG what the motivation for introducing > IsSMDisabled was?
Yes, I've already done that. -- Hal > - R. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
