On 11:13 Wed 12 Mar , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> >
> > struct _ntc_144 {
> > ib_net16_t pad1;
> > - ib_net16_t lid; // lid where capability mask changed
> > - ib_net16_t pad2;
> > - ib_net32_t new_cap_mask; // new capability mask
> > + ib_net16_t lid; // lid where change occured
> > + uint8_t pad2; // reserved
> > + uint8_t local_changes; // 7b reserved 1b local
> > changes
> > + ib_net32_t new_cap_mask; // new capability mask
> > + ib_net16_t change_flgs; // 13b reserved 3b change
> > flags
>
> Should this be padded out as in the 1.2.1 spec ?
It is stated in the 1.2.1 that an upper bits in change_flgs are reserved
for the same purpose - OtherLocalChanges mask. So it looks ok for me to
have it as one field and not redo later.
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
