On 07:25 Sat 23 Jan , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > >> > >> 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.
This is the point. o7-4 is not limited by switch ports. > What are you > referring to here ? This was the question, why such capability check should be (was) ideologically different for CA ports? If 'VLCap > 1' is significant capability indication for switch ports this should be the same interpretation with CA and router ports. > > > Do you know why > > was VLCap > 1 condition ignored there? > > Where is the "there" that you are referring to above ? not switch ports. 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
