Is it valid to have a CM request message with subnet local = 1 and hop limit
> 1?
If so, then it's not clear in the spec on how each side of the QP creation
are to determine if they use GRHs or not.
Can Mellanox be configured to accept both (LRH,LRH_GRH) on a RC QP at the
same time?
- Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean Hefty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Jason Gunthorpe'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sean Hefty"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <general@lists.openfabrics.org>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: [ofa-general] Re: [PATCH] core/cm: improverequestmessage
interpretation of subnet local fields
>I'm with Hal on this - why does this cause a problem? There is no IB
packet verification check that tests if a GRH is present, only if it
is presen it must be valid - so how can an extra correctly filled in
GRH cause anything but degraded performance?
ib_init_ah_from_path() uses the hop_limit in the path record to determine
if a
GRH should be used. It sets the address handle attributes (used to
configure
the QP) based on hop_limit > 1. If hop_limit is set incorrectly in the CM
REQ,
the path record formed by the CM based on data carried in the REQ could
have
invalid GRH values.
It's possible that this is an active side CM issue, but that's not clear
to me.
- Sean
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general@lists.openfabrics.org
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
