Quoting r. Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: RE: [openib-general] Conflicting typedefs for "ib_gid_t" > > >Yes, or ib_mad_, or ibmad_. And same for other IB_ and ib_ names there. > >We really need to do something about names like ib_attr_t. > > I like to move away from each library re-defining common IB data types.
There are not that many "common IB types". verbs and management for example are more or less isolated. CM users mostly don't care about SMPs. etc. What's common? GID? It does not seem worth it for a "free format 16 byte network endianness" type. I don't necessary see a problem with what we have. Such defines mirror IB spec so are static and there is no overhead maintaining them. And this simplifies dependencies no end - think about testing tens of dependent libraries for breakage just 'cause you removed an used line in this "included by everyone" header. > Something like ibv_gid should be picked up from libibverbs. Hmm. User might not have uverbs even loaded, so adding verbs as a dependency to e.g. SM seems like a bad idea. > IMO, the core of the problem is that opensm include files carry too many > legacy > typedefs. opensm really tries to be stack-agnostic, so it does need its own layer for things. -- MST _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
