On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]> wrote:
> The concept of a libibverbs 2.0 has been NAK's by pretty much everyone > involved. This is why we are suffering with the complex extension > mechanism. Are you saying that libibverbs must always always always be backwards compatible, and there will never be an ABI break at any version in the future? > The mixed approach that was brought up, where values like 1500 were > passed as 1500, and values like 1024 were passed as 3 seemed doable to > me. Did you see a problem with it for your use? It just seems overly complex in terms of implementation. > Thoughts: > - 1024 and 3 both mean 1024, the library must accept both values, > it should only ever return 3 though. Why? If the caller can pass in 1024, it seems like 1024 should be able to be passed out, too. > - 1500/etc means 1500, the libray can return that. > - Make a ibv_from/to_mtu inline function to translate from bytes to > the encoded MTU value. > - Switch ibv_mtu from a enum to a typedef int ibv_mtu That also breaks ABI, doesn't it? > Jason -- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ -- 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
