On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 22:05:00 +0000
"Hefty, Sean" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Exactly, to "ignore" them we should mask off those bits and not expect them
> > to
> > be 0 as is currently implemented.
>
> Your proposed implementation for umad_common_mad_status_str() looks
> reasonable to me. What changes were you thinking of?
Just what Hal and I discussed.
If those reserve fields are either A) not correctly set to 0 or B) are used for
some future status this function will fail. Since the spec says to ignore them
I would do something like.
status = ntohs(status);
status &= 0x001F;
With a #define'd mask for 1F of course... ;-)
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
--
Ira Weiny
Member of Technical Staff
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
925-423-8008
[email protected]
--
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
