On 8/31/07, Sasha Khapyorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 07:21 Fri 31 Aug , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > On 8/31/07, Sasha Khapyorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 06:58 Thu 30 Aug , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > And when the setup part of the new QoS will be ready, would we > > > > > > still want > > > > > > the SL2VL and VLArb tables to appear in the opts file? > > > > > > > > > > Don't think. Why we need it in two places? > > > > > > > > Are you saying that the existing QoS will get these tables from the > > > > new QoS syntax (and the existing syntax eliminated) ? > > > > > > Yes. I think it is better than to keep two potentially conflicting > > > configurations. > > > > > > > If so, what > > > > about backward compatibility ? Also, how straightforward is it to > > > > specify the equivalent as the existing syntax ? Will a conversion tool > > > > be supplied ? > > > > > > Not sure it is needed - it is just few lines of text now. > > > > The new equivalent syntax ? > > The new syntax is not equivalent, but similar in part of vlarb and sl2vl > configuration, it is much more powerful and requires some extra lines. > In order to have equivalent configurations vlarb and sl2vl should be > specified by node/port type.
Is there/will there be such a syntax ? -- Hal >Hope I'm not worng about this. > > 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
