From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hal Rosenstock Subject: Re: [PATCH] opensm: Add support for partition enforcement types Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 08:08:54 -0400 Message-ID: <4E1AE7D6.9060209@dev.mellanox.co.il> References: <4E135D51.3080208@dev.mellanox.co.il> <20110710112626.GC8520@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110710112626.GC8520-bi+AKbBUZKY6gyzm1THtWbp2dZbC/Bob@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Alex Netes Cc: "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Hi Alex, On 7/10/2011 7:26 AM, Alex Netes wrote: > Hi Hal, > > On 14:52 Tue 05 Jul , Hal Rosenstock wrote: >> >> Partition enforcement types are in, out, and both. >> Prior to this support, both was being used so that is the default. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hal Rosenstock >> --- > > Now we end up with two parameters for same functionality: > no_part_enforce - you define whether the enforcement is disabled or enabled. > part_enforcement_type - you define enforcement type: in/out/both. > > When no_part_enforce is disabled, part_enforcement_type has no meaning. Yes. > Don't you find it simpler if we had only one option for partition enforcement > with 4 options: disabled/in/out/both(default)? I didn't want to break backward compatibility with existing command line or option file. If we were starting from scratch, it would be one option. -- Hal > -- Alex > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html