> I'm > talking about all the kernel code like the following (and similar > stuff for guidinfo, nodedescription, portinfo, pkeytable). > > You must have nearly identical code in your userspace SMA, since it > also has to respond to the same SM queries, right? > > I'm trying to understand why you can't get down to one implementation > of these functions.
Why does that make a difference? The way I see it, we handle MAD packets by either diverting them somewhere or passing them through the normal ib_mad channel. We divert them somewhere because we find it convenient to do so: it allows us to provide an SMA to our customers without them having to have the full IB stack running. The SMA we provide for these circumstances runs in userspace. It doesn't make use of the existing ipath_mad.c code because that's tailored to: 1) run in the kernel; and 2) deal with the IB stack. Even if we ripped out the guts of ipath_mad.c and had it pass the requests to the userspace SMA, we'd still have to have the diversion path in there for cases where the IB stack isn't around. -- Robert Walsh Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PathScale, Inc. Phone: +1 650 934 8117 2071 Stierlin Court, Suite 200 Fax: +1 650 428 1969 Mountain View, CA 94043. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
