On 6/1/09, Sean Hefty <sean.he...@intel.com> wrote: >>Yes, it is different from GetTable in that SA pares the responses down >>to that but Get doesn't (have that additional language to pare them >>down). > > This seems like an implementation issue (aka bug) with the SA to me.
No; it's what the spec says. >>The language about NumbPath for Get was originally added to indicate >>that the NumbPath was ignored on a Get even if it was included in the >>component mask. > > It states that it's ignored and a value of 1 is used. What else would a > NumbPath value of 1 mean if it's completely ignored? I consider this a spec > bug. :) It was also to deal with the broken case of Get PR with NumbPath > 1. > From an implementation view, requiring users to use SubnAdmGetTable to get a > single path record is less efficient than returning a single PR from > SubnAdmGet. Yes, RMPP is an overhead when the response is a single MAD but is this significant ? Anyhow, how can the spec be changed in a way that doesn't break existing implementations ? -- Hal > How have other SM implementations (not based on opensm) interpreted NumbPath > for PR SubnAdmGet? > > _______________________________________________ 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
