Hal Rosenstock hal.rosenst...@gmail.com wrote on 27.08.2009 15:31:40:
I don't think it should be hard coded. IMO it would be better to default
to 18
and somehow able to be adjusted (via a (dynamic) module parameter ?).
I don't see how making this a parameter would benefit any end user, while
Given that you seem to like the rest of the code and Jason hasn't spoken
up yet, I think we can have Roland merge this patch. Roland, what do you
think?
I don't see any problem with the idea and this does sound like a step
forward, so I am planning on merging this (pending review).
Hal Rosenstock hal.rosenst...@gmail.com wrote on 26.08.2009 17:15:03:
Thanks for doing this. It looks sane to me. The only issue I recall that
appears to be remaining is a better setting of
ClassPortInfo:RespTimeValue
rather than hardcoding. Perhaps using the value from PortInfo is the way
On 8/27/09, Joachim Fenkes fen...@de.ibm.com wrote:
Hal Rosenstock hal.rosenst...@gmail.com wrote on 26.08.2009 17:15:03:
Thanks for doing this. It looks sane to me. The only issue I recall that
appears to be remaining is a better setting of
ClassPortInfo:RespTimeValue
rather than
The old code used a lot of hardcoded values, which might not be valid in all
environments (especially routed fabrics or partitioned subnets). Copy as
much information as possible from the incoming request to prevent that.
Signed-off-by: Joachim Fenkes fen...@de.ibm.com
---
Hal, Jason -- here's
