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

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

On 15:13 Wed 13 Jan     , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Sasha Khapyorsky <sashak-smomgflXvOZWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> 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?

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

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