Re: [PATCH/opensm] Fix SANodeRecord.nodeInfo.localPortNum

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:47:48PM -0500, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
> <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:38:27PM -0500, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
> >> <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:26:26PM -0500, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > I don't think there is really any free interpretation here. For
> >> >> > everything but a switch localPortNum must always reflect the port that
> >> >> > portGUID is associated with.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately, this is not always true due to the funky cross (CA and
> >> >> router) port PortInfo queries (but I don't think that query style is
> >> >> used by OpenSM for CA or router ports but allowed in IBA)...
> >> >
> >> > What part of the spec are you referring to here?
> >>
> >> IBA 1.2.1 v1 p.830 line 9 the otherwise sentence.
> >
> > That is talking about PortInfo. NodeInfo does not support that
> > attribute modifier language, my patch affects SANodeRecord.
> 
> My bad :-( I was thinking of PortInfoRecord, not NodeRecord, for some reason...

No worries, what do you think about my patch, does it align with what
IBA intends?

Thanks,
Jason
--
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