Sasha, On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Sasha Khapyorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Hal, > > On 16:27 Tue 28 Oct , Hal Rosenstock wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Sasha Khapyorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > When entering standby state (after discovery) notify master SM about us. >> > In case when SMA doesn't support trap sending (specifically trap 144 on >> > PortInfo:CapabilityMask change - isSM bit, example is current ConnectX >> > firmware - 2.5.0) this is only way to notify the current master SM that >> > another SM is running. >> >> So is the trap sent unconditionally (since there's no way of knowing >> whether the SMA supports this or not) ? Is the only downside the extra >> Trap/TrapRepress when the SMA does support this ? > > It is not unconditional. There is such code at beginning of > osm_send_trap144(): > > /* don't bother with sending trap when SMA supports this */ > if (!local && > pi->capability_mask&(IB_PORT_CAP_HAS_TRAP|IB_PORT_CAP_HAS_CAP_NTC)) > return 0;
Oh, I see: those bits are not on in PortInfo:CapabilityMask in the C-X SMA. Should that just be checked against HAS_CAP_NTC as there might be other traps supported ? -- Hal >> Seems to me that the right fix is to the Connect-X SMA. > > Agree. But it is not there yet. > >> Also, what happens once the Connect-X SMA is fixed ? Does this code persist ? > > Then osm_send_trap144(..., 0) will do nothing following > PortInfo:CapabilityMask. And actually if the problem will become > obsolete we can remove this call safely. > > Sasha > _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
