On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:16, Roland Dreier wrote: > > p.865 C14-53 and C14-54.1.1 state the behavior I originally said (an not > > active SM responds to SMInfo gets/sets). I think this superceeds the > > first bullet in C14-70 which says incoming SMInfos are dropped. > > That's something else -- it's talking about a running SM that is in > the NOT-ACTIVE state, because the master SM disabled it via a > SubnSet(SMInfo). But that wouldn't affect the IsSMDisabled bit, which > is something different:
I put the two things together. Maybe that is wrong. > C14-69: If a SM can reside on a port, a vendor defined, out-of-band > mechanism shall be provided that when asserted will disable the > capability of running a SM from that port and the state of the > mechanism shall be indicated in the Portinfo:CapabilityMask.IsSMdisabled > bit. > > So if IsSMDisabled then an SM is forbidden from running at all. And > I'm still confused -- why would anyone care whether a port has no SM > running (ie IsSM is not asserted), or _really_ has no SM running (IsSM > not asserted and IsSMDisabled asserted)? Good point. At a minimum, the spec is unclear about this (if they are totally separate mechanisms). -- Hal > - R. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
