From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jim Schutt" Subject: Re: [opensm] routing segfault + LMC > 0 routing bug? Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:51:47 -0600 Message-ID: <4D8A3333.4040508@sandia.gov> References: <1300843412.3128.135.camel@auk59.llnl.gov> <4D8A1965.40805@sandia.gov> <1300902112.3128.147.camel@auk59.llnl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1300902112.3128.147.camel-akkeaxHeDKRliZ7u+bvwcg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Albert Chu Cc: "alexne-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Albert Chu wrote: > Hey Jim, > > On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 09:01 -0700, Jim Schutt wrote: >> Hi Al, >> >> Torus-2QoS's use of port->priv is unique because it persists >> between routing sweeps. So if another routing engine runs >> after torus-2QoS and uses port->priv without having ensured >> that it set it itself, there will be trouble. 9ddcf3419ea >> was fixing such an issue. >> >> I can find only two calls of osm_switch_recommend_path(), >> and both seem to be to do the right thing, so I think >> your patch is OK. > > Sounds good. When reading over your comments about the 2Qos patches > that affected this area, I wasn't quite sure how you were dealing with > the p_port->priv, so I was unsure how my patch would affect things. > There's some comments at the top of osm_torus.c, in the definitions of struct endpoint and struct t_switch, that describe the rules for how torus-2QoS code can safely use ->priv. They may shed some extra light... -- Jim -- 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