From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hal Rosenstock Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] opensm/osm_pkey_mgr.c: In pkey_mgr_update_peer_port, better last block handling Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:31:13 -0400 Message-ID: <4D9E02F1.3090609@dev.mellanox.co.il> References: <4D9B59D1.9010209@dev.mellanox.co.il> <20110407164642.GD21920@calypso.voltaire.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110407164642.GD21920-iQai9MGU/dyyaiaB+Ve85laTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Alex Netes Cc: "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Hi Alex, On 4/7/2011 12:46 PM, Alex Netes wrote: > Hi Hal, >=20 > On 14:05 Tue 05 Apr , Hal Rosenstock wrote: >> >> PKey table capacities are not required to be multiples of the PKey t= able block >> size (32 entries of 16 pkeys). ^^^^^^^ 16 bit pkeys >> >> Current code could enable partition enforcement on the peer switch p= ort >> even if the last partition table block were truncated. In this case,= it's >> better to disable partition enforcement on those ports. >> >=20 > What is the motivation for this patch? The policy question is what to do when that occurs. > 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. The SM shouldn't set any such entries in the PKey table per 14.2.5.7 P_KEYTABLE p. 842 line 37: The AttributeModifier is divided in two halves: =95 The least significant 16 bits are a pointer to a block of 32 P_Key entries to which this Attribute applies. Valid values are 0 - 2047, an= d are further limited by the size of the P_Key table for that node (specified by the PartitionCap for CAs, routers, and switch management ports or PartitionEnforcementCap for external ports on switches). so a conforming SMA should reject such a set. > This is a user configuration issue.=20 Yes. > Why issue a warning message to a log isn't enough? That's the minimum that should be done. The question then becomes whether it's better to enforce for some subset of the partitions or disable enforrcement. I was trying to avoid another config option for t= his. -- Hal > --Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html