Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Doron Shoham <dor...@voltaire.com> wrote:
>> when setting max_op_vls = 0
>> do not force it to 1.
>> 0 is valid value which means "No change"
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Doron Shoham <dor...@voltaire.com>
>> ---
>> opensm/opensm/osm_port.c | 6 ------
>> opensm/opensm/osm_subnet.c | 8 ++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/opensm/opensm/osm_port.c b/opensm/opensm/osm_port.c
>> index 2e6c642..db0c27e 100644
>> --- a/opensm/opensm/osm_port.c
>> +++ b/opensm/opensm/osm_port.c
>> @@ -380,12 +380,6 @@ uint8_t osm_physp_calc_link_op_vls(IN osm_log_t * p_log,
>> if (op_vls > p_subn->opt.max_op_vls)
>> op_vls = p_subn->opt.max_op_vls;
>>
>> - if (op_vls == 0) {
>> - OSM_LOG(p_log, OSM_LOG_DEBUG, "ERR 4102: "
>> - "Invalid OP_VLS = 0. Forcing correction to 1
>> (VL0)\n");
>> - op_vls = 1;
>> - }
>> -
>
> Should that only be done when max_op_vls is 0 ?
>
> Something like:
> if (op_vls > p_subn->opt.max_op_vls)
> op_vls = p_subn->opt.max_op_vls;
> else if (op_vls == 0) {
> OSM_LOG(p_log, OSM_LOG_DEBUG, "ERR 4102: "
> "Invalid OP_VLS = 0. Forcing correction to 1 (VL0)\n");
> op_vls = 1;
> }
why do you suggest a special case for op_vls=0 (and not for other portinfo
fields)?
is there a firmware bug that reports op_vls=0?
Eli
_______________________________________________
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
