On 12:00 Sun 29 Jul , Eitan Zahavi wrote: > > On 14:27 Fri 27 Jul , Eitan Zahavi wrote: > > > The problem I have with back-to-back plug is that it is a > > fatal case > > > if found in a case where there was no use of this plug. > > > So we will need some sort of user input if it is OK or not. > > > > Ok, and let's add cl_qmap_count() check there. > Not following you.
With back-to-back network cl_qmap_count(&sw_guid_tbl) should be 0. > > > The case of moving a port in the middle of a sweep can be easily > > > detected if instead of reporting an error a second check of the > > > original DR where the same GUID was found is performed... > > > > Do you mean to resend NodeInfo request to the original location? > > Assuming so, I guess it should be instead of second heavy > > sweep, and it is a good idea. The only small downside of this > > I can see is potential timeouts (and discovery slowdown). But > > anyway it is much better then fatal error. Thanks! > > So we are inline with this one . > Instead of changing the order of things we could generate list of DR's > that are to be re-scanned > during drop-mgr and then abort if really dulicates. I will need to look at code... 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
