On 22:25 Sun 13 Jan , Max Matveev wrote: > >>>>> "sashak" == Sasha Khapyorsky writes: > > sashak> I suspect that the failure scenario is different. This switch > sashak> was just connected/discovered by OpenSM (it has hops = 0x0 > sashak> yet - this indicates that it does not pass lid matrix > sashak> generation stage yet) and it still be uninitialized by > sashak> LASH. If it is really so checking ->priv for NULL looks like > sashak> valid fix. > > Should opensm ignore requests while it's initializing?
It is initialized, except a newly added switch. I did some tests today in order to reproduce the failure with simulator, but without big success - PathRecord query should be rejected when it passes non-prepared switches. At least it is with master branch. > sashak> Is this reproducible failure? > > We've hit it twice - first time cores were disabled, so I only know > what opensm died in get_lash_id() but I don't know where it was called > from. And this is the second time. Would be interesting to know in which OpenSM state it happens. Could you send me the core file and exact git tree hash? I would like to investigate this deeper. 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
