On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:27:21 -0700 Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 17:05 -0700, Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 13:38 -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > <snip> > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Having OpenSM request client reregistration (used in other places by > > OpenSM) of such nodes will resolve this issue. As little or as much > > policy can be built into OpenSM in determining "such" nodes to scope > > down the application of this mechanism for this case. > > One side comment on the non OpenSM aspect of this: > > Why is the node temporarily unavailable ? There is a "contract" that the > node makes with the SM that it clearly isn't honoring. Is any > investigation going on relative to this aspect of the issue ? > Yes, we are working on finding the root cause. I agree that the "contract" is not being honored. This is one of the reasons I was hesitant to implement any fix to be submitted. I don't think this is truly a bug in the stack. However, I could see this causing issues for people[*] and it might be nice to have a "fix". Ira [*] Particularly those who do not have any other connection to nodes other than IB. _______________________________________________ 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
