On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:29:15PM -0500, Jim Hall wrote: > Is it valid to have a CM request message with subnet local = 1 and hop > limit > 1?
Oop, I hadn't considered the subnet local field. That should probably unconditionally control the GRH, like your patch. Hmm, you know, there is compliance statement C9-43.1.2 that is not reflected in the flow diagram of Figure 81, so the GRH presence/absence is explicitly matched. My bad. > C9-43.1.2: For RC, RD and UC services, if a received packet is > consistent with the configuration of the QP (or EEC) with respect to > the presence or absence of a GRH, then the packet shall be > considered to have passed the GRH check, subject to the remaining > GRH checks described in the rest of Section 9.6.1.2 GRH Checks on > page 274. One thing though, if the subnet local = 0 and the incoming hop limit <= 1 a GRH will still not be used. Your patch should probably also force the hop limit to 2 in this case and include a note for later fixup.. Jason _______________________________________________ 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
