On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 17:02, Eitan Zahavi wrote: > Hi Hal, > > When is a complete fix expected? > Meanwhile osmtest on large enough cluster is not passing due to the huge > number of GUID blocks... > > If this full fix not anticipated soon can we have the simple fix applied > first?
Sure. Let me know if this is also needed on the 1.0 branch. -- Hal > Eitan Zahavi > Senior Engineering Director, Software Architect > Mellanox Technologies LTD > Tel:+972-4-9097208 > Fax:+972-4-9593245 > P.O. Box 586 Yokneam 20692 ISRAEL > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 9:11 PM > > To: Eitan Zahavi > > Cc: OPENIB > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] osm: fix num of blocks of GUIDInfo GetTable query > > > > Hi Eitan, > > > > On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 13:12, Eitan Zahavi wrote: > > > Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > > > Hi Eitan, > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 07:24, Eitan Zahavi wrote: > > > > > > > >>Hi Hal > > > >> > > > >>I'm working on passing osmtest check. Found a bug in the new > > > >>GUIDInfoRecord query: If you had a physical port with zero > guid_cap > > > >>the code would loop on blocks 0..255 instead of trying the next > port. > > > > > > > > > > > > OK; that's definitely a problem. > > > > > > > > > > > >>I am still looking for why we might have a guid_cap == 0 on some > > > >>ports. > > > > > > > > > > > > PortInfo:GuidCap is not used for switch external ports. > > > > > > > > > > > >>This patch resolves this new problem. osmtest passes on some > arbitrary > > > >>networks. > > > >> > > > >>Eitan > > > >> > > > >>Signed-off-by: Eitan Zahavi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> > > > >>Index: opensm/osm_sa_guidinfo_record.c > > > > >>=================================================================== > > > >>--- opensm/osm_sa_guidinfo_record.c (revision 7703) > > > >>+++ opensm/osm_sa_guidinfo_record.c (working copy) > > > >>@@ -255,6 +255,10 @@ __osm_sa_gir_create_gir( > > > >> continue; > > > >> > > > >> p_pi = osm_physp_get_port_info_ptr( p_physp ); > > > >>+ > > > >>+ if ( p_pi->guid_cap == 0 ) > > > >>+ continue; > > > >>+ > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the right fix is to detect switch external ports and use > the > > > > VLCap from port 0 rather than from the switch external port > (unless that > > > > concept is broken in which case it should return 0 records). > > > I think switch external ports do not have any PortGUID assigned to > them since > > > they are not "end port" (i.e. addressable). > > > > Right; that's what I said earlier in a different way (PortGUID is not > > used for switch external ports). > > > > > So I think this patch is good enough. > > > > I think its better (an improvement) but not a complete fix for this > > issue. > > > > > What if a port reports guid_cap == 0? > > > > Is that legal ? Shouldn't any port where GUIDCap is valid have a non > > zero GUIDCap ? On any port where GUIDCap is not used (e.g. invalid), > it > > should be ignored. > > > > > (I understand it is illegal for addressable port > > > but for the SM it is probably better not to assume all ports are > legal...) > > > > That's my point on what a complete fix for this would include. > > > > -- Hal > > > > > EZ > > > > > > > > -- Hal > > > > > > > > > > > >> num_blocks = p_pi->guid_cap / 8; > > > >> if ( p_pi->guid_cap % 8 ) > > > >> num_blocks++; > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
