> Can we at least agree on the usage of these structures first? Are the > constants going to be in host or network byte order?
I was simply suggesting to 'move' some of the existing structures and defines. > Are you going to make something like the kernel where there is a > native structure and pack/unpack function set? This would not be my preference. > Something macro-based like foo = GET_MEMBER(*pr,preference) > > Network byte order casting structures? > > Host byte order casting structures? (my favorite) > > bitfields? again - not my preference > Ira, I think the cleanest answer is that OSM keeps its type file, and > umad gets a new one that is cleaner, more capable and probably > incompatible. I'd hate to see us stick to the OSM scheme for umad just > for code compatability. Whatever is done must fit within the windows development framework that we use. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
