On 14:18 Mon 24 May , Arthur Kepner wrote:
> > > .....
> > > /* do a sweep if we received a trap */
> > > if (sm->p_subn->opt.sweep_on_trap) {
> >
> > > - /* if this is trap number 128 or run_heavy_sweep is TRUE -
> > > - update the force_heavy_sweep flag of the subnet.
> > > - Sweep also on traps 144 - these traps signal a change of
> > > - certain port capabilities.
> > > - TODO: In the future this can be changed to just getting
> > > - PortInfo on this port instead of sweeping the entire subnet.
> > > */
> > > - if (ib_notice_is_generic(p_ntci) &&
> > > - (cl_ntoh16(p_ntci->g_or_v.generic.trap_num) == 128 ||
> > > - cl_ntoh16(p_ntci->g_or_v.generic.trap_num) == 144 ||
> > > - run_heavy_sweep)) {
> > > - OSM_LOG(sm->p_log, OSM_LOG_VERBOSE,
> > > - "Forcing heavy sweep. Received trap:%u\n",
> > > + if (!sm->p_subn->sweeping_enabled) {
> > > + OSM_LOG(sm->p_log, OSM_LOG_DEBUG,
> > > + "sweeping disabled - ignoring trap %u\n",
> > > cl_ntoh16(p_ntci->g_or_v.generic.trap_num));
> >
> > Isn't this case already handled in osm_state_mgr_process() and this code
> > addition in osm_trap_rcv.c redundant?
>
> It is redundant.
So could you remove this part from the patch? The rest seems fine for
me.
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
