Hi Hal,
Hal Rosenstock wrote:
Hi Yevgeny,
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 03:30, Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
Hi Hal,
Enhancing integer indexes in fat-tree to 32 bits.
I'm not sure whether it's a bug - fat-tree routing makes indexing
not the same way as up/down. It marks rank on all the leaf switches,
and only then starts BFS (starting from all the leaf switches and not
from roots), so I don't think that it can really overflow the existing
indexes. But who knows...
Fixing this won't hurt anyway.
No, it won't.
Please apply to master.
See comment/question below.
-- Hal
-- Yevgeny
Signed-off-by: Yevgeny Kliteynik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
osm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c | 12 ++++++------
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/osm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c b/osm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c
index 7b6a6a5..ca51484 100644
--- a/osm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c
+++ b/osm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ typedef struct ftree_sw_t_
{
cl_map_item_t map_item;
osm_switch_t * p_osm_sw;
- uint8_t rank;
+ uint32_t rank;
ftree_tuple_t tuple;
ib_net16_t base_lid;
ftree_port_group_t ** down_port_groups;
@@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ __osm_ftree_sw_create(
memset(p_sw, 0, sizeof(ftree_sw_t));
p_sw->p_osm_sw = p_osm_sw;
- p_sw->rank = 0xFF;
+ p_sw->rank = 0xFFFFFFFF;
__osm_ftree_tuple_init(p_sw->tuple);
p_sw->base_lid = osm_node_get_base_lid(p_sw->p_osm_sw->p_node, 0);
@@ -678,7 +678,7 @@ static boolean_t
__osm_ftree_sw_ranked(
IN ftree_sw_t * p_sw)
{
- return (p_sw->rank != 0xFF);
+ return (p_sw->rank != 0xFFFFFFFF);
}
/***************************************************/
@@ -1025,7 +1025,7 @@ __osm_ftree_fabric_destroy(ftree_fabric_
/***************************************************/
static void
-__osm_ftree_fabric_set_rank(ftree_fabric_t * p_ftree, uint8_t rank)
+__osm_ftree_fabric_set_rank(ftree_fabric_t * p_ftree, uint32_t rank)
{
if (rank > p_ftree->tree_rank)
p_ftree->tree_rank = rank;
@@ -1314,7 +1314,7 @@ __osm_ftree_fabric_assign_first_tuple(
ftree_tuple_t new_tuple;
__osm_ftree_tuple_init(new_tuple);
- new_tuple[0] = p_sw->rank;
+ new_tuple[0] = (uint8_t)p_sw->rank;
Should the declaration of ftree_tuple_t change ?
Only if there's a chance that we will build a switch with more than 256 ports.
And when I say "switch" I mean a single unit, not the one that has internal
topology with several building blocks.
But in that case lots of things should be fixed.
For instance, ib_node_info_t.num_ports is 8 bits too.
-- Yevgeny
for (i = 1; i <= p_sw->rank; i++)
new_tuple[i] = 0;
@@ -1374,7 +1374,7 @@ __osm_ftree_fabric_calculate_rank(
{
ftree_sw_t * p_sw;
ftree_sw_t * p_next_sw;
- uint16_t max_rank = 0;
+ uint32_t max_rank = 0;
/* go over all the switches and find maximal switch rank */
_______________________________________________
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
