On 15:13 Wed 13 Jan , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Sasha Khapyorsky <sas...@voltaire.com> wrote: > > On 08:38 Thu 07 Jan , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > >> > >> Change appears to be for switches to always rely on this bit rather > >> than only when VLCap is 1. I wonder if there are any switches with > >> VLCap > 1 that don't set the IsSLMappingSupported CapabilityMask bit. > >> There shouldn't be (at least if they are IBA 1.2.1 compliant) but are > >> you sure about this ? > > > > I'm not sure about this, but think that probability of using such > > hypothetical old switches for any sort of QoS is very low. > > Low but not zero... I'm also not sure it's just old switches... > I've seen many rejections (status 7) since you made this change.
This is interesting. Do you have any details? > > And anyway it > > doesn't look for me that we have any stronger SL2VL mapping capability > > indication - 'VLCap > 1' by itself doesn't do this too, right? > > It does. There's a requirement that SL2VL mapping is required when VLCap > 1. Correct, I found it in o7-4. Basically we can check both (now after switch/endport separation in the code this should be easier), but I would prefer to understand better an issue (if we have) first. Also same o7-4 is applicable to CA and router ports. Do you know why was VLCap > 1 condition ignored there? Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
