[openib-general][PATCH][RFC]: CMA header

[Sean Hefty]

James Lentini wrote:
> Why not make REJECTED mean NON_PEER_REJECTED and add a PEER_REJECTED? 
> In other words:
> 
>  enum ib_cma_event {
>        IB_CMA_EVENT_ESTABLISHED = 1,
>        IB_CMA_EVENT_REJECTED,
>        IB_CMA_EVENT_PEER_REJECTED,
>        IB_CMA_EVENT_DISCONNECTED,
>        IB_CMA_EVENT_UNREACHABLE  
>  };
> 
> In my opinion this makes the hierarchy clearer. There are general 
> rejections and specific peer rejections.

 From an implementation viewpoint, I'm not sure we can distinguish between 
rejected and peer rejected.  How about just rejected with some additional reject 
information in the case that the user cares?

- Sean