Hi Alex,
On 4/7/2011 12:46 PM, Alex Netes wrote:
> Hi Hal,
>
> On 14:05 Tue 05 Apr , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>>
>> PKey table capacities are not required to be multiples of the PKey table
>> block
>> size (32 entries of 16 pkeys).
^^^^^^^
16 bit pkeys
>>
>> Current code could enable partition enforcement on the peer switch port
>> even if the last partition table block were truncated. In this case, it's
>> better to disable partition enforcement on those ports.
>>
>
> What is the motivation for this patch?
The policy question is what to do when that occurs.
> In case where there are more pkeys than sw->switch_info.enforce_cap I guess
> enforcement won't be applied on pkeys > sw->switch_info.enforce_cap.
The SM shouldn't set any such entries in the PKey table per 14.2.5.7
P_KEYTABLE p. 842 line 37:
The AttributeModifier is divided in two halves:
• The least significant 16 bits are a pointer to a block of 32 P_Key
entries to which this Attribute applies. Valid values are 0 - 2047, and
are further limited by the size of the P_Key table for that node
(specified by the PartitionCap for CAs, routers, and switch management
ports or PartitionEnforcementCap for external ports on switches).
so a conforming SMA should reject such a set.
> This is a user configuration issue.
Yes.
> Why issue a warning message to a log isn't enough?
That's the minimum that should be done. The question then becomes
whether it's better to enforce for some subset of the partitions or
disable enforrcement. I was trying to avoid another config option for this.
-- Hal
> --Alex
--
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
