On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 11:06, Eitan Zahavi wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:50 PM > > To: Eitan Zahavi > > Cc: Roland Dreier; [email protected]; Nimrod Gindi; Aviram > Gutman; > > Sasha Khapyorsky; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Vu Pham; Roland Dreier > > Subject: RE: QoS RFC > > > > On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 10:51, Eitan Zahavi wrote: > > > Hi Roland, > > > > > > > > This is OK but it's sort of a pain to have to query SA > ClassPortInfo > > > > all the time. Do you have a plan for how to make this transparent > to > > > ULPs? > > > [EZ] Well, a ULP that uses CMA will have it handled by CMA... > > > But an old SM implementation that does not support this kind of > > > PathRecord extension will probably choke on the new fields once > their > > > component mask bits are set. > > > > What do you mean by "choke" ? Wouldn't the new components just be > > ignored ? > [EZ] By choke I mean - the SA might decide to error the request on > invalid parameter.
Sure and that should be handled by the end node. Depending on what component has control over the request, a non QoS request could be remade if appropriate. -- Hal > > > > > You could however query once for each Client-Reregister event. > > > > > > > > (BTW something in your email client is really messing up the > > > > formatting of your message) > > > [EZ] Thanks I will resend . > > > > > > > > - R. > > > _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
