On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Sasha Khapyorsky<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Hal, > > On 11:53 Mon 06 Jul , Hal Rosenstock wrote: >> >> @@ -1286,7 +1315,7 @@ uint8_t osm_get_lash_sl(osm_opensm_t * p_osm, const >> >> osm_port_t * p_src_port, >> >> >> >> ?? ?? ?? src_id = get_lash_id(p_sw); >> >> ?? ?? ?? if (src_id == dst_id) >> >> - ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? return OSM_DEFAULT_SL; >> >> + ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? return opt->lash_start_vl; >> > >> > Is this correct? As far as I understand this is SL for paths between >> > CA ports connected to the same switch (which should be safe in sense of >> > credit loops). Should lash be involved here? >> >> Is there a reason not to use the LASH SL for this ? I think it's more >> in the spirit of LASH to do this. > > OTOH it changes the default(current) behavior, and it would be nice to > have a reason to do this.
The reason is to use the QoS parameters of LASH rather than the default SL. If you want, this can be separate as I would like to move the rest of this ahead if possible. -- Hal > > 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
