Just two things:
1. It might be better if the ABI version 5 warning message for only
pkey_index 0 being supported comes out at umad_init time rather than
umad_set_pkey time so that the user is not swamped with these.

Placing the warning in umad_init would display it even if the app only used pkey_index 0, so keeping it in umad_set_pkey seems better to me. We could make it so that the warning message only displays once though.

2. There is one pathological combination. It would be using 2.6.23 (with
the new user_mad ABI version 6), an updated libibumad would be required,
but an older libvendor (osm_vendor_ibumad.c without your one line
change). That might be the case with someone who swapped back and forth
between OFED 1.2 and master in some scenarios.

I don't know how we can support all combinations, especially since the return codes aren't being checked. We can make a special case when umad_set_pkey() is called with 0xffff on ABI 6, and display a warning message and/or convert it to the correct index.

Also, this does not quite work as expected. An error was returned based
on the bad pkey index but I do see a send on the IB link (with a bad
pkey). I wouldn't have expected the latter part. Maybe this is a driver
or firmware issue. Not sure yet. I suppose there should be some
pkey_index validation (to make sure it is within the device's valid
range) and that should also ultimately get added to libibumad or should
such validation go into the user_mad kernel module ?

I think if we want to validate that the pkey_index is reasonable, the check should go in the kernel.

- Sean
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to