Peter Memishian wrote:
>  > Vanity naming support is not in SDP, we should be going away from bcmp() 
>  > and check  other attributes on the link as you have noted in your 
>  > previous email. For sdp_pr_lookup(), the original plan was to use a 
>  > proposed interface that Ashish was working on. But that did'nt happen. 
>  > Later on after sdp integration, a large part of sdp_pr_lookup() 
>  > functionality was pulled in into IB framework to make it available to 
>  > RDS. As a result RDS is based on this newer functionality, but sdp did 
>  > not cleaned up. But in general a large part of sdp_pr_lookup() should be 
>  > replaced with the newer IB framework api.
>
> Understood.  But I'd rather not do that rewrite as part of Clearview,
> since it's out-of-scope.
>
> Could you review my proposed changes to sdp_link.c and ibcm_arp_link.c?
>
>       /net/zhadum.east/export/ws/clearview/clearview-ipmp/webrev
>
>   

Shantkumar Hiremath reviewed the ibcm_* and recommends that Nitin review 
the SDP code.

>  > Yes the functionality to check on the underlying interface is needed. So 
>  > in addition to converting sdp_check_interface() support vanity naming,  
>  > is there any additional IPMP specificness that sdp needs to be aware of  ?
>
> AFAIK, just the source-IP-address -> source MAC address mapping issue I
> mentioned before.  Please see my webrev.  For purposes of review, you can
> assume that ipmp_ipif_hold_bound_ill() will return the ill_t that will
> be used to receive packets for the specified source address, and can also
> be used to transmit packets for the IPMP group.  Note that ARP's ACE
> entries are associated with the IPMP group interface (rather than an
> underlying interface), so providing the IPMP group interface's ill_name
> when contacting ARP is appropriate.
>
>  > > Thoughts?  Also, who would be an appropriate code reviewer in this area,
>  > > and what testing would you recommend?
>  > 
>  > This function is executed in context of a connect() call in sdpland. So 
>  > a simple sdp connect() success/failure(more importantly) should be 
>  > sufficient to test this change.
>
> I presume I need a machine with appropriate hardware?  Also, are there
> already test cases that do this in a test suite somewhere?
>   

Can you work with Venki Rajagopalan 
(Venkatakrishnan.Rajagopalan at Sun.Com) on this?

-David

> Thanks,
>   

Reply via email to