It was a space limitation issue, fixed it...thanks.
-Suri > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Ledford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:00 PM > To: Suresh Shelvapille > Cc: 'OpenIB' > Subject: Re: installing 1.2-GA on Redhat EL5 > > On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 12:54 -0400, Suresh Shelvapille wrote: > > Doug: > > > > I had ofed-1.2-rc1 installed on a server running redhat el5. I am trying to > > upgrade the > > release to ofed-1.2-GA. The build finished and the install gives me this > > error: > > > > > > -------------- > > > > Installing OFED software into /usr/local/ofed_1.2 > > > > Running /bin/rpm -ihv --force --nodeps > > /root/ofed_1.2-GA/OFED-1.2-20070626-0917/RPMS/redhat-release-5Server-5.0.0.9/kernel-ib-1.2- > 2.6.18_8.el5.x86_64.rpm > > /root/ofed_1.2-GA/OFED-1.2-20070626-0917/RPMS/redhat-release-5Server-5.0.0.9/kernel-ib-devel-1.2- > 2.6.18_8.el5.x86_64.rpm > > | > > ERROR: Failed executing "/bin/rpm -ihv --force --nodeps > > /root/ofed_1.2-GA/OFED-1.2-20070626-0917/RPMS/redhat-release-5Server-5.0.0.9/kernel-ib-1.2- > 2.6.18_8.el5.x86_64.rpm > > /root/ofed_1.2-GA/OFED-1.2-20070626-0917/RPMS/redhat-release-5Server-5.0.0.9/kernel-ib-devel-1.2- > 2.6.18_8.el5.x86_64.rpm > > " > > > > ------------------- > > > > Any ideas... > > Not from this output. I would need the actual rpm error messages to > know what's wrong. Try running the above rpm command by hand and > copy-n-pasting the errors. > > > > > Thanks, > > Suri > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf > > > Of Sean Hefty > > > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:23 PM > > > To: Yevgeny Kliteynik > > > Cc: OpenIB > > > Subject: Re: [ofa-general] QoS RFC > > > > > > > 2.5. ULPs that use CM interface (like SRP) should have their own > > > > pre-assigned Service-ID and use it while obtaining PR/MPR for > > > > establishing connections. The SA receiving the PR/MPR should match it > > > > against the policy and return the appropriate PR/MPR including SL, > > > > MTU and RATE. > > > > > > We need to ensure that this can work without pre-assigned service IDs, > > > or at least service IDs that are assigned within a fairly wide range, > > > such as locally assigned IDs. > > > > > > > 2.6. ULPs and programs using CMA to establish RC connection should > > > > provide the CMA the target IP and Service-ID. Some of the ULPs might > > > > also provide QoS-Class (E.g. for SDP sockets that are provided the > > > > TOS socket option). The CMA should then use the provided Service-ID > > > > and optional QoS-Class and pass them in the PR/MPR request. The > > > > resulting PR/MPR should be used for configuring the connection QP. > > > > > > The interface to the CMA needs to remain as transport independent as > > > possible, and I am unsure of the transport independence of tying QoS to > > > the destination port number. (I'm not disagreeing; I'm just not sure at > > > the moment it's the right approach.) > > > > > > > PathRecord and MultiPathRecord enhancement for QoS: As mentioned > > > > above the PathRecord and MultiPathRecord attributes should be > > > > enhanced to carry the Service-ID which is a 64bit value, which has > > > > been standardized by the IBTA. A new field QoS-Class is also > > > > provided. A new capability bit should describe the SM QoS support in > > > > the SA class port info. This approach provides an easy migration path > > > > for existing access layer and ULPs by not introducing new set of > > > > PR/MPR attribute. > > > > > > Has any thought been given to how to make this scale? > > > > > > > 5. CMA features ---------------- > > > > > > > > The CMA interface supports Service-ID through the notion of port > > > > space as a prefixes to the port_num which is part of the sockaddr > > > > provided to rdma_resolve_add(). What is missing is the explicit > > > > request for a QoS-Class that should allow the ULP (like SDP) to > > > > propagate a specific request for a class of service. A mechanism for > > > > providing the QoS-Class is available in the IPv6 address, so we could > > > > use that address field. Another option is to implement a special > > > > connection options API for CMA. > > > > > > > > Missing functionality by CMA is the usage of the provided QoS-Class > > > > and Service-ID in the sent PR/MPR. When a response is obtained it is > > > > an existing requirement for the CMA to use the PR/MPR from the > > > > response in setting up the QP address vector. > > > > > > The most natural function to specify additional QoS parameters would be > > > rdma_resolve_route. > > > > > > - 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 > -- > Doug Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > GPG KeyID: CFBFF194 > http://people.redhat.com/dledford > > Infiniband specific RPMs available at > http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband _______________________________________________ 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
