Hal Rosenstock wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Smith, Stan <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Skip the destination lid byte-order swap as it's already in the >> correct order for vendor IBAL. >> >> Permits 'osmtest -f f -s4' test to correctly complete. >> >> signed-off-by: stan smith <[email protected]> >> >> --- a/ulp/opensm/user/osmtest/osmtest.c Thu May 20 12:34:59 2010 >> +++ b/ulp/opensm/user/osmtest/osmtest.c Thu May 20 12:36:33 2010 @@ >> -2885,7 +2885,11 @@ >> memset(&context, 0, sizeof(context)); >> >> slid = cl_ntoh16(p_osmt->local_port.lid); >> +#ifdef OSM_VENDOR_INTF_AL >> + dlid = p_osmt->local_port.sm_lid; // already in correct >> byte-order +#else >> dlid = cl_ntoh16(p_osmt->local_port.sm_lid); >> +#endif > > Seems weird to me that port LID would be in network order but SM LID > is not (for OSM_VENDOR_INTF_AL). > > -- Hal
IBAL provides numerous items in ready to send network byte order. I believe the !OSM_VENDOR+INTF_AL clause should actually be hton16. > >> >> /* >> * Do a blocking query for the PathRecord. >> _______________________________________________ >> ofw mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw _______________________________________________ ofw mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ofw
