Hi Sasha,
On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 18:37 +0300, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> Hi Hal,
>
> I agree about idea. But patch itself seems to not be against main stream
> (or any known published branch). Comments are below.
It is against master but I made a mistake in generating it.
> On 13:22 Fri 30 May , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > OpenSM/osm_sa_mcmember_record.c: In __search_mgrp_by_mgid, collapse all
> > scopes when consolidating IPv6 SNM
> >
> > v2 compares masked prefixes rather than actual prefix in MCMemberRecord
> > MGID and MGRP
> > v1 had a minor comment change
> >
> > Patch is cumulative on minor improvement patch to this file
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > --- opensm/osm_sa_mcmember_record.c.1 2008-05-30 03:58:01.129544000
> > -0700
> > +++ opensm/osm_sa_mcmember_record.c 2008-05-30 13:13:59.344954000 -0700
>
> Please next time generate a diff at least at one level above (but better
> is as usual - at git tree level + 1).
>
> > @@ -1083,19 +1083,21 @@
> >
> > if (sa->p_subn->opt.consolidate_ipv6_snm_req) {
> > /* Special Case IPv6 Solicited Node Multicast (SNM)
> > addresses */
> > - /* 0xff12601bXXXX0000 : 0x00000001ffYYYYYY */
> > - /* Where XXXX is the P_Key and
> > + /* 0xff1Z601bXXXX0000 : 0x00000001ffYYYYYY */
> > + /* Where Z is the scope, XXXX is the P_Key, and
> > * YYYYYY is the last 24 bits of the port guid */
> > -#define PREFIX_MASK (0xff10601b00000000ULL)
>
> There I have 0xff12601b00000000ULL value (and likely it is what you
> wanted to fix :)).
Correct. That was where the generated patch was broken.
> > +#define PREFIX_MASK (0xff10ffff00000000ULL)
> > +#define PREFIX_SIGNATURE (0xff10601b00000000ULL)
> > #define INT_ID_MASK (0x00000001ff000000ULL)
> > uint64_t g_prefix =
> > cl_ntoh64(p_mgrp->mcmember_rec.mgid.unicast.prefix);
> > uint64_t g_interface_id =
> > cl_ntoh64(p_mgrp->mcmember_rec.mgid.unicast.interface_id);
> > uint64_t rcv_prefix =
> > cl_ntoh64(p_recvd_mgid->unicast.prefix);
> > uint64_t rcv_interface_id =
> > cl_ntoh64(p_recvd_mgid->unicast.interface_id);
> >
> > - if ((rcv_prefix & PREFIX_MASK) == PREFIX_MASK &&
> > + if ((rcv_prefix & PREFIX_MASK) == PREFIX_SIGNATURE &&
>
> If you are changing PREFIX_MASK to 0xff10601b00000000ULL,
No, PREFIX_MASK is being changed to 0xff10ffff00000000ULL to:
1. eliminate the scope part, and
2. get the entire signature
for subsequent comparison.
> why PREFIX_SIGNATURE is needed? Am I missing something?
Because PREFIX_MASK masks the bits to compare and SIGNATURE is what it
should be after masking.
I'll regenerate v4 and hopefully I'll get it right.
-- Hal
> Sasha
>
> > (rcv_interface_id & INT_ID_MASK) == INT_ID_MASK &&
> > - g_prefix == rcv_prefix &&
> > + (g_prefix & PREFIX_MASK) ==
> > + (rcv_prefix && PREFIX_MASK) &&
> > (g_interface_id & INT_ID_MASK) ==
> > (rcv_interface_id & INT_ID_MASK)) {
> > OSM_LOG(sa->p_log, OSM_LOG_INFO,
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
