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

Reply via email to