On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:51:56 -0800 "Sean Hefty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>4) saquery.c is the only diags pgms (so far) which uses OpenSM MAD > >>interfaces; > >>the rest use libibmad. > > Looking briefly at the saquery code, I don't understand the benefit to using > the > opensm vendor interfaces, versus using libibmad or even libibumad directly, > and > switching to libibumad looks doable. (It's not clear to me that there are > benefits to using libibmad over libibumad for saquery.) > > - osm_bind_handle_t looks like it could map to a libibumad port_id (int). > - osmv_query_sa() could map to umad_send(), followed by umad_recv() to > obtain the result. (Replace osmv_query_sa with a new function.) > - There are a couple other calls that are used to loop through all returned > attributes in a response MAD. We could use the MAD attribute offset > directly. (Update loops where osmv_get_query_* is called.) > > Are there technical reasons why the opensm vendor library was chosen for > saquery? Would there be any objection to changing saquery to use libibumad > directly? I don't remember the exact details but at the time saquery was first written, ibmad/ibumad did not have all the functionality I needed and the OpenSM vendor library did. That may no longer be the case and if not then I would support converting to using those other libraries. Ira > > - Sean > > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http:// lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general > > To unsubscribe, please visit http:// > openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general > _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
