Hi Eitan, On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 03:17, Eitan Zahavi wrote: > Hi Hal, > > I think we need to stick to the IB spec terminology. > Since the spec did not change and only added some note describing the > change we probably just need to add such comment too.
Ideally the spec would have been changed. > I can see people looking at the sa_key and trying to find it in the > spec... How do you propose handling the setting of the 2 keys differently ? They need different names at least for configuration purposes. -- Hal > Eitan > > Eitan Zahavi > Design Technology Director > Mellanox Technologies LTD > Tel:+972-4-9097208 > Fax:+972-4-9593245 > P.O. Box 586 Yokneam 20692 ISRAEL > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:27 PM > > To: Eitan Zahavi; Yael Kalka > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Separating SA and SM Keys > > > > Hi, > > > > In order to support separate SA and SM keys and make this clearer, I > > propose to change ib_types.h as follows. > > > > -- Hal > > > > Index: ib_types.h > > =================================================================== > > --- ib_types.h (revision 4540) > > +++ ib_types.h (working copy) > > @@ -3618,7 +3618,7 @@ typedef struct _ib_sa_mad > > ib_net32_t seg_num; > > ib_net32_t paylen_newwin; > > > > - ib_net64_t sm_key; > > + ib_net64_t sa_key; > > > > ib_net16_t attr_offset; > > ib_net16_t resv3; _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
