[ofa-general] RE: [PATCH] rdma_cm: fix port type (fix bug 557)

[Sean Hefty]

> Possible. I was using the OFED build environment in sles10sp1, and without the 
> patch next_port sometimes gets a negative value. This might be the reason it was
> difficult to reproduce this. Anyway, in order to cover all possibilities (such 
> as C99), I think that next_port should be unsigned.

The problem makes sense to me now, and it explains why it wasn't easily 
reproducible on other platforms.  I'm not sure if we should convert 
next_port to an unsigned value, or just ensure that it's not negative. 
It's defined as an int since idr_get_new_above() expects an int.  Do we 
need an explicit cast when calling idr_get_new_above(), or how about 
just casting next_port to unsigned when initializing it?

- Sean