Re: [PATCH] opensm/osm_qos.c: merge SL2VL mapping capability check

[Sasha Khapyorsky <sashak-smomgflXvOZWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

On 07:25 Sat 23 Jan     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> >>
> >> It does. There's a requirement that SL2VL mapping is required when VLCap > 1.
> >
> > Correct, I found it in o7-4. Basically we can check both (now after
> > switch/endport separation in the code this should be easier), but I
> > would prefer to understand better an issue (if we have) first.
> >
> > Also same o7-4 is applicable to CA and router ports.
> 
> I see no mention of CA and router ports in o7-4.

This is the point. o7-4 is not limited by switch ports.

> What are you
> referring to here ?

This was the question, why such capability check should be (was)
ideologically different for CA ports? If 'VLCap > 1' is significant
capability indication for switch ports this should be the same
interpretation with CA and router ports.

> 
> > Do you know why
> > was VLCap > 1 condition ignored there?
> 
> Where is the "there" that you are referring to above ?

not switch ports.

Sasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html