On 15:40 Tue 03 Feb , Eli Dorfman (Voltaire) wrote:
> >> --- a/opensm/opensm/osm_state_mgr.c
> >> +++ b/opensm/opensm/osm_state_mgr.c
> >> @@ -1042,6 +1042,13 @@ static void do_sweep(osm_sm_t * sm)
> >> ib_api_status_t status;
> >> osm_remote_sm_t *p_remote_sm;
> >>
> >> + if (sm->p_subn->rescan_conf_file) {
> >> + if (osm_subn_rescan_conf_files(sm->p_subn) < 0)
> >> + OSM_LOG(sm->p_log, OSM_LOG_ERROR, "ERR 331A: "
> >> + "osm_subn_rescan_conf_file failed\n");
> >> + sm->p_subn->rescan_conf_file = FALSE;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> > What would be wrong with using exiting 'force_heavy_sweep' flag?
> >
> 'force_heavy_sweep' flag is set in other occasions as well
Yes. And file is rescanned on heavy sweep (later) anyway :)
>
> > Another issue with this patch - config file will be rescanned later
> > again (during heavy sweep). It would be really nice to avoid such
> > obviously unneeded double parsing.
> >
> that is correct, but we need a special flag to handle the priority change
> when SM
> is in standby.
> In that case a rescan at the beginning of do_sweep is a must, otherwise it
> will
> simply return without doing anything.
> what was the reason of putting rescan not in the beginning of do_sweep().
I don't remember many details, but originally it was used for updating
only selected parameters. Also (I guess) for eliminating rescanning on
light sweeps.
> If none then we can simply rescan as first step.
After fast thinking - it could be an option, just verify that it will
not break functionality a lot.
Sasha
_______________________________________________
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
