On 15:14 Wed 13 Jan , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> >> > @@ -223,12 +222,20 @@ static int qos_extports_setup(osm_sm_t * sm,
> >> > osm_node_t *node,
> >> > if (!(p0->port_info.capability_mask & IB_PORT_CAP_HAS_SL_MAP))
> >> > return ret;
> >> >
> >> > + if (ib_switch_info_get_opt_sl2vlmapping(&node->sw->switch_info)
> >> > &&
> >> > + sm->p_subn->opt.use_optimized_slvl) {
> >> > + p = osm_node_get_physp_ptr(node, 1);
> >> > + force_update = p->need_update || sm->p_subn->need_update;
> >> > + return sl2vl_update_table(sm, p, 1, 0x30000,
> >> > force_update,
> >> > + &qcfg->sl2vl);
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> > for (i = 1; i < num_ports; i++) {
> >> > p = osm_node_get_physp_ptr(node, i);
> >> > force_update = p->need_update || sm->p_subn->need_update;
> >> > for (j = 0; j < num_ports; j++)
> >> > - if (sl2vl_update_table(sm, p, i, j, force_update,
> >> > - &qcfg->sl2vl))
> >> > + if (sl2vl_update_table(sm, p, i, i << 8 | j,
> >> > + force_update,
> >> > &qcfg->sl2vl))
> >> > ret = -1;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > , does it look fine for you?
> >>
> >> In the optimized case, doesn't this send extra SL2VL mapping table ?
> >
> > I don't see how, could you elaborate?
>
> Doesn't this send a table for the endport even when optimized ?
Yes, and how is this different from the original patch?
Remember, that there is a different configuration for switch's port 0
(needed or not - this is another question), so we must to take it into
account.
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
