Hi Matan, Le mercredi 30 octobre 2013 à 11:52 +0200, Matan Barak a écrit : > From: Yann Droneaud <ydrone...@opteya.com> > > The unused field in the extended header is a perfect candidate > to hold the command "comp_mask" (eg. bit field used to handle > compatibility). This was suggested by Roland Dreier in a previous > review[1]. > > So this patch move comp_mask from create_flow/destroy_flow commands > to the extended command header. Then comp_mask is passed as part > of function parameters. >
As I wrote in a previous mail, I think this "comp_mask" should not be handled specificaly since a "comp_mask" might be also needed for the "provider" So I'm now in favor of dropping this patch and adding a note in the patch which update the framework about the usage of "comp_mask" in each part of the command/response. Regards. -- Yann Droneaud OPTEYA -- 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
