Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
Hi Yevgeny,
On 18:03 Thu 30 Oct , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
Sasha,
This patch frees the switch's lft_buf if it matches the
LFT that is currently configured on switch.
Signed-off-by: Yevgeny Kliteynik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I applied this. Thanks. However one question below.
[snip...]
diff --git a/opensm/opensm/osm_ucast_mgr.c b/opensm/opensm/osm_ucast_mgr.c
index adb6688..175817c 100644
--- a/opensm/opensm/osm_ucast_mgr.c
+++ b/opensm/opensm/osm_ucast_mgr.c
@@ -392,6 +392,20 @@ int osm_ucast_mgr_set_fwd_table(IN osm_ucast_mgr_t * const
p_mgr,
context.lft_context.node_guid = osm_node_get_node_guid(p_node);
context.lft_context.set_method = TRUE;
+ if (!p_sw->lft_buf) {
+ /* any routing should provide the lft_buf */
+ CL_ASSERT(p_mgr->p_subn->opt.use_ucast_cache &&
+ p_mgr->cache_valid && !p_sw->need_update);
+ goto Exit;
+ }
+
+ if (!p_sw->need_update &&
+ !memcmp(p_sw->lft, p_sw->lft_buf, IB_LID_UCAST_END_HO + 1)) {
+ free(p_sw->lft_buf);
+ p_sw->lft_buf = NULL;
+ goto Exit;
+ }
+
So buffers are freed only on next routing iteration (heavy sweep). Isn't
it better to drop it when LFT images from switches are received in
osm_lin_fwd_rcv.c?
Sure, why not. That way the memory would be freed faster.
-- Yevgeny
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
