On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 18:26, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:34:44PM +0200, Eitan Zahavi wrote: > > Hi Troy, > > > > Good to get a straight forward message. > > > > What I hear you saying is: > > 1. There needs to be a parameter to control the SM behavior if it finds > > another SM with non matching SM Key: > > -> Either to ignore it or to die. We can do that. No problem! > > Is it possible to have another option as well, to attempt to disable the > port the SM with the non-matching key is connected to?
Not sure you need an option for this. This is beyond the spec but even if you disabled the switch port across the link from the non matching SM, you might still have other nodes claimed by that SM which you couldn't access. You would still need to do something to clear that up. Also, if it is an embedded SM (on a switch) then there are numerous ports to disable. -- 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
