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

Hal Rosenstock
2010-01-23T12:25:28Z

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Sasha Khapyorsky <sashak-smomgflXvOZWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On 15:13 Wed 13 Jan     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Sasha Khapyorsky <sashak@voltaire.com> wrote:
>> > On 08:38 Thu 07 Jan     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Change appears to be for switches to always rely on this bit rather
>> >> than only when VLCap is 1. I wonder if there are any switches with
>> >> VLCap > 1 that don't set the IsSLMappingSupported CapabilityMask bit.
>> >> There shouldn't be (at least if they are IBA 1.2.1 compliant) but are
>> >> you sure about this ?
>> >
>> > I'm not sure about this, but think that probability of using such
>> > hypothetical old switches for any sort of QoS is very low.
>>
>> Low but not zero... I'm also not sure it's just old switches...
>> I've seen many rejections (status 7) since you made this change.
>
> This is interesting. Do you have any details?

I've been unable to get test time for this as yet.

>> > And anyway it
>> > doesn't look for me that we have any stronger SL2VL mapping capability
>> > indication - 'VLCap > 1' by itself doesn't do this too, right?
>>
>> 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. What are you
referring to here ?

> Do you know why
> was VLCap > 1 condition ignored there?

Where is the "there" that you are referring to above ?

-- Hal

> Sasha