On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Sasha Khapyorsky <sas...@voltaire.com> wrote: > 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?
I've been unable to get test time for this as yet. >> > 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. I see no mention of CA and router ports in o7-4. What are you referring to here ? > Do you know why > was VLCap > 1 condition ignored there? Where is the "there" that you are referring to above ? -- Hal > 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
