On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Smith, Stan <[email protected]> wrote:
> ** ** > > *From:* Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, September 30, 2011 4:09 AM > *To:* Smith, Stan > *Cc:* Alex Netes; Hal Rosenstock; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [ofw] Opensm 3.3.11 (Debug) + 'osmtest -f m -M1' ASSERT() > fires?**** > > ** ** > > Hi Stan,**** > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Smith, Stan <[email protected]> wrote: > **** > > Hello again, > I forgot about another issue that was side-stepped via '#if 0' in order to > make forward progress in the porting of OpenSM 3.3.11 to Windows. > > opensm/osm_helper.c > > int ib_path_compare_rates(IN const int rate1, IN const int rate2) > { > int orate1 = 0, orate2 = 0; > > CL_ASSERT(rate1 >= IB_MIN_RATE && rate1 <= IB_MAX_RATE); > CL_ASSERT(rate2 >= IB_MIN_RATE && rate2 <= IB_MAX_RATE); > > When running a DEBUG version of opensm with 'osmtest -f m -M1', part of the > test is to set invalid rates (rate1, rate2 == 1). > When the rate1 or rate2 == 1 the CL_ASSERT() fires as IB_MIN_RATE == 2. > I think the fix is to explicitly allow rate1 or rate2 == 1 for osmtest? > > /* rate1 | rate2 == 1 comes from 'osmtest -f m -M1' (expected > invalid rate) */ > CL_ASSERT((rate1 >= IB_MIN_RATE || rate1 == 1) && rate1 <= > IB_MAX_RATE); > CL_ASSERT((rate2 >= IB_MIN_RATE || rate2 == 1) && rate2 <= > IB_MAX_RATE); > > Thoughts?**** > > **** > > That's a workaround rather than a fix.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Agreed, which is why I did not submit this as a patch.**** > > ** ** > > **** > > There are 2 problems here:**** > > **** > > 1. Those particular tests in osmtest are not testing what they intended on > testing and they need to be redesigned. The tests are using reserved values > for rates. See > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg08391.html email > thread.**** > > **** > > 2. Rather than change this assert which is correct, the rate value should > be validated and rejected by the SA if invalid. I'll work on a patch for > this shortly.**** > > **** > > -- Hal**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Sounds reasonable; standing by. > > > Just sent the patch series on rate validation to fix this. You need patches 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7. -- Hal > > > **** > > > Thanks, > > Stan. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
