As far as I know and checked, there is no need to implement a special transactions mechanism, and the code is fine There is transaction mechanism defined for IB-ML and IB-MME in the spec, not for BM MADs.
Itai -----Original Message----- From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 5:49 PM To: Itai Baz Cc: Sasha Khapyorsky; OpenIB Subject: Re: [PATCH] libibmad: added support for handling of BM (Baseboard management) MADs - FIXED without rmpp On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Itai Baz <[email protected]> wrote: > As far as I'm aware, the response_expected handling is sufficient. > BMGet and BMSet always have response. > BMSend may be used both as a request from client to server, and as a > response from server to client Yes, but is transaction handling (request/response) used or needed on some BMSends ? -- Hal > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 4:50 PM > To: Itai Baz > Cc: Sasha Khapyorsky; OpenIB > Subject: Re: [PATCH] libibmad: added support for handling of BM > (Baseboard management) MADs - FIXED without rmpp > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Itai Baz <[email protected]> wrote: >> This patch adds support for handling of BM (Baseboard management) > MADs. >> >> I checked Hal's comment regarding RMPP, indeed there is no need for >> it > >> for BM, so I have removed rmpp, and i'm using now mad_rpc > > Thanks. > > Also, is the response_expected handling sufficient ? For any BMSend, > it will say no response expected. Is that what is really desired ? I'm > not sure on what basis the BMA sets the response bit in the AM on a > "response" to a BMSend but that is used in the kernel (to determine an > incoming BM response). Should this mimic that idea ? > > -- Hal > > <snip...> > _______________________________________________ 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
