On 07:56 Tue 24 Jul , Eitan Zahavi wrote: > > On 20:59 Mon 23 Jul , Eitan Zahavi wrote: > > > Hi Sasha, Hal, > > > > > > I think I have an idea: > > > > > > Since this is a specific switch that reported ChangeBit or Trap why > > > can't we just qualify that there was no change in the switch setup? > > > > The ChangeBit seems to be good start point - then OpenSM will > > query all switch ports PortInfo anyway and if for all ports > > PortState is <= INIT (and at least for one port it is = > > INIT), it means that this switch was rebooted/reinitialized. > > > > And for single port PortState drop to = INIT should indicate > > reinitialization. > > > > Seems correct? > Yes. > > > > > We could send PortInfo, SwitchInfo, > > > > SwitchInfo is queried at each light sweep, PortInfo's if > > ChangeBit is set. Guess we are ok with it even now. > I will double check that... > Well - even setting one port state to INIT did not cause the switch to > be reconfigured. > Seems the code does not enforce this condition yet. > > > > > LFT, MFT, SL2VL, VLArb, PKey queries > > > and make sure no change from previous state. Or we could simply > > > enforce last state by sending it over again ... > > > > I think we could want to re-read PKey tables in order to > > preserve existing PKey indices and just to flush (overwrite > > with new settings) LFT, MFT, SL2VL, VLArb tables. Reasonable? > Correct.
Ok, I will prepare patches. I think about separate patches for switches and ports. Also likely MFT should be handled separately, since we don't do incremental update there yet. Sasha _______________________________________________ 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
