From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Netes Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] opensm/osm_state_mgr.c: Don't rely on PortInfo:PortState for base SP0 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:17:13 +0300 Message-ID: <20110420141713.GD28761@calypso.voltaire.com> References: <4DAC3CCC.4090101@dev.mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DAC3CCC.4090101-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 09:29 Mon 18 Apr , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > For base SP0, PortState in SM PortInfo attribute is not used and base SP0 > is always "active". How SM can be attached to base SP0? Moreover, if during discovery we found that SM is attached to base SP0, don't we want to act like the port is down? > > Signed-off-by: Hal Rosenstock > --- > diff --git a/opensm/osm_state_mgr.c b/opensm/osm_state_mgr.c > index 2e1ef94..dd308f2 100644 > --- a/opensm/osm_state_mgr.c > +++ b/opensm/osm_state_mgr.c > @@ -352,7 +352,11 @@ static boolean_t state_mgr_is_sm_port_down(IN osm_sm_t * sm) > > CL_ASSERT(p_physp); > > - state = osm_physp_get_port_state(p_physp); > + if (p_port->p_node->sw && > + !ib_switch_info_is_enhanced_port0(&p_port->p_node->sw->switch_info)) > + state = IB_LINK_ACTIVE; /* base SP0 */ > + else > + state = osm_physp_get_port_state(p_physp); > CL_PLOCK_RELEASE(sm->p_lock); > > Exit: > -- > 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 -- 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