On 8/30/07, Rolf Manderscheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:01:57PM -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > On 8/30/07, Rolf Manderscheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Sasha, > > > > > > This patch sets the hop limit for the IPv4 broadcast groups so that > > > broadcasts work > > > through IB routers. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rolf Manderscheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > diff --git a/opensm/opensm/osm_prtn.c b/opensm/opensm/osm_prtn.c > > > index 46ee429..fc000b1 100644 > > > --- a/opensm/opensm/osm_prtn.c > > > +++ b/opensm/opensm/osm_prtn.c > > > @@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ ib_api_status_t osm_prtn_add_mcgroup(osm_log_t * > > > p_log, > > > mc_rec.pkey = pkey; > > > mc_rec.rate = (rate ? rate : OSM_DEFAULT_MGRP_RATE) | (2 << 6); /* > > > 10Gb/sec */ > > > mc_rec.pkt_life = OSM_DEFAULT_SUBNET_TIMEOUT; > > > - mc_rec.sl_flow_hop = ib_member_set_sl_flow_hop(p->sl, 0, 0); > > > + mc_rec.sl_flow_hop = ib_member_set_sl_flow_hop(p->sl, 0, 0xff); > > > > Shouldn't this be based on whether the group is local scope or not ? > > If the group has local scope then the hop limit is irrelevant, packets will > get > dropped by the router anyway. I certainly don't object to making the hop > limit > conditional on scope if that's the preference.
Looking at the PathRecord code, it only checks whether a DGID was requested or not and then sets the hop limit only being dependent on whether ROUTER_EXP was defined or not. Should we follow continue to follow this or make PathRecord responses consistent with this ? -- Hal > > Rolf > _______________________________________________ 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
