[openib-general] RE: [RFC] DAT 2.0 extension proposal

[Arlin Davis]

Arlin Davis wrote:

> Kanevsky, Arkady wrote:
>
>>
>> 5. Memory protection extension for atomic operations
>>  
>> 6. error returns for extensions?
>
>
> yes and yes;  I will work these into the next patch and update the 
> proposal.

For error returns I am thinking about carving up the return type, adding 
a new mask, and extension get type macro. Suggestions on carving up the 
following? Carve into type or subtype? other suggestions?

type: DAT_RETURN_CLASS    DAT_RETURN_TYPE    DAT_RETURN_SUBTYPE
bits:  31-30                                   
29-16                              15-0
 
-arlin