From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Netes Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] opensm/osm_pkey_mgr.c: In pkey_mgr_update_peer_port, better last block handling Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:46:42 +0300 Message-ID: <20110407164642.GD21920@calypso.voltaire.com> References: <4D9B59D1.9010209@dev.mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D9B59D1.9010209-LDSdmyG8hGV8YrgS2mwiifqBs+8SCbDb@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Hal Rosenstock Cc: "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Hi Hal, On 14:05 Tue 05 Apr , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > PKey table capacities are not required to be multiples of the PKey table block > size (32 entries of 16 pkeys). > > Current code could enable partition enforcement on the peer switch port > even if the last partition table block were truncated. In this case, it's > better to disable partition enforcement on those ports. > What is the motivation for this patch? In case where there are more pkeys than sw->switch_info.enforce_cap I guess enforcement won't be applied on pkeys > sw->switch_info.enforce_cap. This is a user configuration issue. Why issue a warning message to a log isn't enough? --Alex -- 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