Quoting r. Leonid Arsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: [openib-general][PATCH] mthca & ib_verbs.h client reregister
> event support by the SW
>
> You are right.
> Without adding the event handling to IPoIB, IPoIB will not re-register
> with the SM in some cases.
> We really should add it.
> I'll add the event handling to IPoIB a bit later.
How about an (untested) one-liner like
Index: openib/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_verbs.c
===================================================================
--- openib/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_verbs.c (revision 6343)
+++ openib/drivers/infiniband/ulp/ipoib/ipoib_verbs.c (working copy)
@@ -255,7 +255,9 @@ void ipoib_event(struct ib_event_handler
record->event == IB_EVENT_PKEY_CHANGE ||
record->event == IB_EVENT_PORT_ACTIVE ||
record->event == IB_EVENT_LID_CHANGE ||
- record->event == IB_EVENT_SM_CHANGE) {
+ record->event == IB_EVENT_SM_CHANGE ||
+ record->event == IB_EVENT_CLIENT_REREGISTER
+ ) {
ipoib_dbg(priv, "Port state change event\n");
queue_work(ipoib_workqueue, &priv->flush_task);
}
> Anyway, I think we could apply the patch.
> The CLIENT_REREGISTER request was not supported by older FW, and now we
> behave the same way.
> In most cases, the event comes together with the PORT_ACTIVE event, so
> we don't miss much here.
> That's why I think that the patch doesn't harm IPoIB.
How about when opensm is re-started? I actually do this all the time.
--
MST
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
