[ofw] ib_send_wr_t vaddr byte-order

[Fab Tillier]

>> It appears to be in host order, based on looking at the WSD provider
>> code.
>>
>> It probably should be in network order, though.
>
> gurgle... this would break compatibility...
>
> Maybe we can keep uAL in host order, but change the UVPs to use network
> order?

That would probably work.

> Otherwise, we can just deal with this funkiness in the API, and I'll
> change winverbs to use host order as well...

Or add an extra entry point into the UVP to handle this...

I think having the UVP take the value in network order is ideal since the value goes on the wire.  In the best case scenario, the address received (in network order) is passed to the UVP, and no byte swapping takes place.  For the case where offsets have to be added to the address, you end up with two swaps - one to network order to allow arithmetic, and one back to network order for the UVP call.  This is no worse than what's done currently (must switch to host order to call UVP, which switches back to network order.)

So my personal preference would be to keep WinVerbs taking the remote address in network order, and we can fix up the rest of the stack as we move forward.

-Fab