Hi Yevgeny,
On 17:27 Sun 27 Jan , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
>
> Fat-tree routing should ignore port 0 and loopback
> connections on switches when populating its db.
>
> Please apply to ofed_1_3 and master.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yevgeny Kliteynik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> opensm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/opensm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c b/opensm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c
> index dcbdc44..904a9c5 100644
> --- a/opensm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c
> +++ b/opensm/opensm/osm_ucast_ftree.c
> @@ -3113,7 +3113,7 @@ static int __osm_ftree_fabric_construct_sw_ports(IN
> ftree_fabric_t * p_ftree,
>
> CL_ASSERT(osm_node_get_type(p_node) == IB_NODE_TYPE_SWITCH);
>
> - for (i = 0; i < osm_node_get_num_physp(p_node); i++) {
> + for (i = 1; i < osm_node_get_num_physp(p_node); i++) {
> osm_physp_t *p_osm_port = osm_node_get_physp_ptr(p_node, i);
>
> if (!osm_physp_is_valid(p_osm_port))
> @@ -3158,6 +3158,19 @@ static int __osm_ftree_fabric_construct_sw_ports(IN
> ftree_fabric_t * p_ftree,
> __osm_ftree_fabric_get_sw_by_guid(p_ftree,
> remote_node_guid);
> CL_ASSERT(p_remote_sw);
> +
> + /* ignore any loopback connection on switch */
> + if (p_sw == p_remote_sw) {
> + osm_log(&p_ftree->p_osm->log, OSM_LOG_DEBUG,
> + "__osm_ftree_fabric_construct_sw_ports:
> "
> + "Ignoring loopback on switch 0x%016"
> PRIx64
> + ", LID 0x%04x, rank %u\n",
> + __osm_ftree_sw_get_guid_ho(p_sw),
> + cl_ntoh16(p_sw->base_lid),
> + p_sw->rank);
> + continue;
> + }
> +
What about to make it before remote switch resolving (5 lines above)?
Something like:
if (p_node == p_remote_node) {
.....
continue;
}
should be faster.
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
