On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 00:58 +0300, Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote: > Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > Hi Yevgeny, > > > > On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 12:59 +0300, Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote: > > > > I haven't yet had a chance to review this in detail but think that > > router ports need to be accomodated in the subnet (I think this is a > > firm requirement as router ports on the subnet are already supported) > > and also think that nothing should be introduced precluding the running > > of OpenSM on a router port. From the latter standpoint, it looks much > > like a CA port. > > This is exactly how I implemented it - any non-switch port is > treated as CA, which is just a target LID. > > Well, I mean I intended to implement it that way - I reviewed it again, > and it appears that the cache is fine with routing to routers and running > from switches,
then it's just the variable names which indicate ca if routers are grouped with cas. > but there will be a problem when SM runs on a router node - > cache will complain and fall back to usual routing. > That can be easily fixed. Right; the one thing I saw was in _ucast_cache_get_starting_osm_sw where routers were not supported. I think a one line change is all that's needed there. Not sure if there are other places. > However, I'm not sure how the OpenSM will behave in general when running > from switch or router - I've never tried it. Has anyone try it? I'm not sure either but would be interested to hear. I think there are some using it on switch port 0 and also think others have tried it on routers. In terms of switches, it used to work and there is some support in the vendor directory for this. -- Hal > -- Yevgeny > > > -- Hal > > > > > _______________________________________________ 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
