From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hal Rosenstock Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Ad IB_MTU_1500|9000 enums. Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 08:31:07 -0400 Message-ID: <515D728B.5010202@dev.mellanox.co.il> References: <1364994796-10642-1-git-send-email-jsquyres@cisco.com> <1364994796-10642-2-git-send-email-jsquyres@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)" Cc: Roland Dreier , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "Upinder Malhi (umalhi)" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 4/4/2013 8:22 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: > On Apr 3, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Roland Dreier wrote: > >> I don't think we can blithely do this... I think the IB enum values >> are defined to match the values used in the IB spec (PathRecord etc). > > Gotcha. I inserted the enums in their proper numerical order to make the range comparisons simpler in ib_addr.h. But the 1500/9000 values could be tacked at the end of the current values (e.g., 6 and 7, respectively) -- it would just necessitate some different changes in ib_addr.h. What happens if in the future the IBTA adds new MTUs and allocates those currently reserved MTU values ? Wouldn't those values need to be standardized at the IBTA so that conflict won't occur ? -- Hal -- 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