On 4/4/2013 8:22 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > On Apr 3, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Roland Dreier <rol...@purestorage.com> wrote: > >> I don't think we can blithely do this... I think the IB enum values >> are defined to match the values used in the IB spec (PathRecord etc). > > Gotcha. I inserted the enums in their proper numerical order to make the > range comparisons simpler in ib_addr.h. But the 1500/9000 values could be > tacked at the end of the current values (e.g., 6 and 7, respectively) -- it > would just necessitate some different changes in ib_addr.h.
What happens if in the future the IBTA adds new MTUs and allocates those currently reserved MTU values ? Wouldn't those values need to be standardized at the IBTA so that conflict won't occur ? -- Hal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
