On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Yevgeny Kliteynik
<klit...@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> Hi Sasha,
>
> I noticed that OpenSM doesn't send InformInfo on traps 129/130/131.
> This is what osm_trap_rcv.c is doing:
>
> 322: static void trap_rcv_process_request(IN osm_sm_t * sm,
> 323: IN const osm_madw_t * p_madw)
> ...
> 435: if (ib_notice_is_generic(p_ntci) &&
> 436: (p_ntci->g_or_v.generic.trap_num == CL_HTON16(129) ||
> 437: p_ntci->g_or_v.generic.trap_num == CL_HTON16(130) ||
> 438: p_ntci->g_or_v.generic.trap_num == CL_HTON16(131))) {
> 439: /* If this is a trap 129, 130, or 131 - then this is
> a
> 440: * trap signaling a change on a physical port.
> 441: * Mark the physp_change_trap flag as TRUE.
> 442: */
> 443: physp_change_trap = TRUE;
> ...
>
> 539: /* If we reached here due to trap 129/130/131 - do not need to do
> 540: the notice report. Just goto exit. We know this is the case
> 541: if physp_change_trap is TRUE. */
> 542: if (physp_change_trap == TRUE)
> 543: goto Exit;
>
>
> Any particular reason why there's no reporting of these traps?
AFAIK it's been this way for at least the last 5 or 6 years.
A practical consideration in changing this is that these traps are the
ones for which babbling port was implemented since they do not obey
the trap rate so there's a large downside to adding the reports for
these. If that is to be done, then perhaps this should be done based
on some option.
-- Hal
>
> -- Yevgeny
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
