On 1/16/2015 2:49 PM, Weiny, Ira wrote: >> On 1/15/2015 6:30 PM, Weiny, Ira wrote: >>>> >>>> On 1/12/2015 12:11 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> From: Ira Weiny <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> OPA_MIN_CLASS_VERSION -- OPA Class versions are > 0x80 >>>>> OPA_SMP_CLASS_VERSION -- Defined at 0x80 >> OPA_MGMT_BASE_VERSION -- >>>>> Defined at 0x80 >>>>> >>>>> Increase max management version to accommodate OPA >>>> >>>> Allocation of MAD base and class version numbers is owned by the IBTA. >>>> It doesn't seem appropriate to arbitrarily claim code points without >>>> proper approval. >>> >>> OPA is its own architecture space. While this space uses some of the >>> same values as IB we are not claiming any IBTA values. >> >> You *are* claiming IBTA values. When the IBTA chooses to use those values, >> then there will be a conflict. > > There is no conflict. > > It is true that when the IBTA assigns meaning to those values the code may > have to be changed to interpret this new > meaning. That has to happen regardless of these patches or their meaning on > OPA devices.
Currently, these patches are claiming values that are controlled by an established standards organization. It is the equivalent of just grabbing a currently unused Ethertype value for a new protocol and then claiming that whenever the IEEE allocates it for something else you will make changes to resolve the conflict. There are then a range of kernel versions which would do the wrong thing with the new IEEE value rather than indicate that it is not (currently) supported. It's not an appropriate practice in the design of networking protocols. -- Hal > Ira > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
