Ted H. Kim wrote:
I know we originally set out to compress everything down to the minimum to preserve as much ULP specific private data as possible. But it seems to me in the current proposal we have reserved space now which could be used to re-expand the version to major 4-bits and minor-4 bits without harming anything else.
I don't see any benefit to having 2 4-bit version numbers over a single 8-bit number. A single 4-bit version number should suffice. If all version numbers are ever consumed, then version 15 can define an extended version field. IMO, multiple version fields simply complicate the implementation.
I would rather see the reserved space used to define the size of carried user-private data.
- Sean _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
