From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roland Dreier Subject: Re: [ewg] [PATCH v4] IB Core: RAW ETH support Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:31:52 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1276513450.30132.51.camel@alst60.voltaire.com> <4C18E557.5050804@Voltaire.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C18E557.5050804-hKgKHo2Ms0F+cjeuK/JdrQ@public.gmane.org> (Moni Shoua's message of "Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:53:11 +0300") Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Moni Shoua Cc: Alekseys Senin , Eli Cohen , "ewg@openfabrics.org" , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Tziporet Koren , Yiftah Shahar List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org > There is no qp type IBV_QPT_RAW_ETY in user space (at least not in the definitions > coming with libibverbs). In fact, libibverbs that comes with OFED defines (in verbs.h) > a qp type called IBV_QPT_RAW_ETT which equals to 7. > The patch that is under discussion here adds a new qp type IB_QPT_RAW_ETH and equals it to 7 > to match the definition in user space. This indeed changes the value of IB_QPT_RAW_ETY to 8 > but I don't see who can be affected since > 1. No user space program that uses IB_QPT_RAW_ETY exists > 2. kernel is compiled as one piece of code. Why renumber the _ETY enum? Maybe it doesn't break anything serious but why risk it? -- Roland Dreier || For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html -- 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