On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 14:02 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:50:01AM -0800, Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > > Guess I don't see much difference (on the passive side) in checking the > > LIDs for permissive or the subnet local field to determine whether to > > use the LIDs from the LRH. The only difference is this additional > > special meaning to the permissive LIDs. > > I think there are three cases here: > > 1) It is subnet local, the node should just use the lids > 2) It is not subnet local, and the necessary local lids are not known. > The node should do the LRH copy work around > 3) It is not subnet local, and the necessary local lids are provided. > The node shoul djust use the the lids. > > Just using the subnet local field does not provide enough information > to tell which of the three cases we need to use.
Thanks; that was what I was missing. -- Hal > > I expect the main use of the subnet local bit should be control use > of a GRH on that path - we have overloaded hoplimit for that case > which is probably not entirely correct. > > Jason _______________________________________________ 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
