On 8/30/07, Rolf Manderscheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 01:25:43PM -0400, Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > 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 ? > > > Isn't the plan to incorporate the ROUTER_EXP code eventually?
Eventually is relatively a long time IMO as it when there is an official router spec. Certainly well beyond the OFED 1.3 timeframe. >I would > rather not add any more #ifdefs if we can avoid it. I think your suggestion > of setting the hop limit according to the scope of the multicast group seems > like the better option to me ... I'll post a new patch. Are you OK with the > other patch to fix the scope of the second MGID? If so, I'll base the new > patch on that. Yes, I think that is OK as this would work for the no routers supported case as does the PathRecord code. In the longer term for both of these, I wonder whether hop limit will continue to be returned as the max or whether some actual limit would be returned. -- 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
