On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 14:52, Eitan Zahavi wrote: > >>Without the above change I get: > >>Listing GUIDs: > >>Port 0:0xd9dffffff3d55 lid:0x0300 state:4 > >>Port 1:0xd9dffffff3d55 lid:0x0400 state:4 > >>Port 2:0xd9dffffff3d56 lid:0x0000 state:0 > >> > >>After the simple change I get: > >>Listing GUIDs: > >>Port 0:0xd9dffffff3d55 lid:0x0300 state:4 > >>Port 1:0xd9dffffff3d55 lid:0x0300 state:4 > >>Port 2:0xd9dffffff3d56 lid:0x0400 state:4 > >> > >>So as you can see - without the fix the lid of port 2 is presented as > >>the lid of port 1... > > > > > > I understand the difference in the code and think the difference > > perhaps relates to either a lack of clarity or confusion with the API as > > follows: I don't see where it is defined what the index into the port > > array means. I think we have 2 different interpretations and this > > relates to how opensm/main.c handles the results of calling this > > routine.
> I do not follow you. Do you suggest it is OK the port at index 1 will have > the guid of port 1 but the lid and state of port 2? No. > I did not complain about what port is reported at what index: > Just about the mismatch of guids and lids. Please see above. I'm with you now. Thanks. Applied. -- Hal _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
