On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 04:57:43PM +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote: > > Hal asked for this, and I agree. It is just lazy not to check the > > underlying device type for this stuff - they are different number > > spaces, administered by different bodies with no apparent > > coordination. > > > > The IBA is pretty clear what should happen to process an unsupported class > > version and and adding OPA shouldn't suddenly make the IB side > > non-conformant, however aesthetically unpleasing the code may be. > > Are there checks to ensure that MADs not supported by RoCE aren't > processed on RoCE ports?
RoCE isn't different, it uses the same numbering space and rules as IB. Jason -- 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
