Sure...good suggestion. IB_NODE_RNIC it is.
James Lentini wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Tom Tucker wrote:
>
>
>
>>This patch is against the iWARP branch. It adds CM related
>>methods to the ib_device structure as well as simple versions
>>of the low level port, gid, pkey, etc... query methods.
>>
>>I also added printks to the provider methods so I could track the
>>loading process. These will be removed when the driver is stable.
>>
>>Please take a look and let me know what you think. I'll check
>>this in to the iWRAP branch tomorrow if no one expresses dismay.
>>
>>Please feel free to send me patches to this patch if you see
>>something.
>>
>>Signed-of-by: Tom Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>Index: include/ib_verbs.h
>>===================================================================
>>--- include/ib_verbs.h (revision 3120)
>>+++ include/ib_verbs.h (working copy)
>>@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
>>
>> #include <linux/types.h>
>> #include <linux/device.h>
>>+#include <linux/in.h>
>>
>> #include <asm/atomic.h>
>> #include <asm/scatterlist.h>
>>@@ -59,7 +60,8 @@
>> enum ib_node_type {
>> IB_NODE_CA = 1,
>> IB_NODE_SWITCH,
>>- IB_NODE_ROUTER
>>+ IB_NODE_ROUTER,
>>+ IB_NODE_IWARP
>>
>>
>
>Should it be IB_NODE_RNIC instead since the other values are for
>hardware types?
>
>
>
>> };
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
