On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 20:49 +0000, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: > On 12:29 Thu 06 Mar , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 20:29 +0000, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: > > > On 08:58 Thu 06 Mar , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > > > > > > > > +typedef uint8_t mad_gid_t[16]; > > > > > > > > Should this be ib_mad_gid_t ? > > > > > > Or maybe ibmad_gid_t - to match library name exactly? > > > > Yes but then there would be lots of others to make consistent and follow > > the standard. Would they all be converted over ? That would be the best > > thing to do but is more disruptive. > > Yes, this would be nice. Not sure when we will do it - one-by-one moving > is likely better than nothing anyway.
For this one where there's a conflict, that's fine but if others are done one by one, it will be more disruptive. IMO the rest should be done in one fell swoop and the fewer times this changes the better. -- Hal > Sasha > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
