On 00:33 Mon 30 Jun , Sasha Khapyorsky wrote: > > Another thing we may want to add (but it is not related to routing cache > or incremental routing) it to keep two sets of LFTs with switch object > for validation purposes - "requested" (filled by routing algorithm) and > "real" (filled from responded MADs).
Actually even this is not needed. If OpenSM tried to set some LFT block and failed it is better to try again (or re-request a heavy sweep), such validation could be done on per-block basic in LFT MADs receiver - nothing fancy. 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
