On 08:38 Thu 07 Jan , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > Change appears to be for switches to always rely on this bit rather > than only when VLCap is 1. I wonder if there are any switches with > VLCap > 1 that don't set the IsSLMappingSupported CapabilityMask bit. > There shouldn't be (at least if they are IBA 1.2.1 compliant) but are > you sure about this ?
I'm not sure about this, but think that probability of using such hypothetical old switches for any sort of QoS is very low. And anyway it doesn't look for me that we have any stronger SL2VL mapping capability indication - 'VLCap > 1' by itself doesn't do this too, right? Sasha -- 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
