On Dec 12, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Andrew Friedley wrote:
>> Either seems fine to me; the ofud method seems a little less elegant
>> -- was there a reason not to use exclusivity here? Was it just
>> the fact that TCP's exclusivity is already the lowest possible
>> value (0)?
>
> Sorry.. try putting my name in the email or something so I know you're
> asking me.
What, you don't pore over each and every e-mail that is sent to this
list? :-)
> I think there was but I don't remember right now. If a low
> exclusivity
> for the UD BTL means it won't get used with the RC BTL, then that's
> fine. I don't like that string parsing code anyway. Suggestions on
> what to set the exclusivity to?
The LOW value is 0. The TCP BTL now sets itself to LOW+100 (the
lowest of the built-in BTLs that is expected to be used by default),
and the SCTP BTL now sets itself to LOW.
So perhaps 0? (and then remove the string parsing gorp)
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}