[ofw] ib_portinfo_record_t padding history?

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Sean Hefty <sean.hefty at intel.com> wrote:
>>> The padding looks wrong based on the IB spec.  PortInfoRecord should have
>>> PortInfo as its last field.  The size of PortInfoRecord should be 58 bytes.
>>
>>I don't think that size for PortInfoRecord is correct as PortInfo is
>>60 bytes with MaxCreditHint and LinkRtLatency.
>
> The IB spec is wrong on table 194 (PortInfoRecord).  The PortInfo Length that's
> given is too small.

Right.

> I'll submit a bug against this.

I already did this.

-- Hal

> - Sean
>
>