On 15:14 Wed 13 Jan , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > >> > @@ -223,12 +222,20 @@ static int qos_extports_setup(osm_sm_t * sm, > >> > osm_node_t *node, > >> > if (!(p0->port_info.capability_mask & IB_PORT_CAP_HAS_SL_MAP)) > >> > return ret; > >> > > >> > + if (ib_switch_info_get_opt_sl2vlmapping(&node->sw->switch_info) > >> > && > >> > + sm->p_subn->opt.use_optimized_slvl) { > >> > + p = osm_node_get_physp_ptr(node, 1); > >> > + force_update = p->need_update || sm->p_subn->need_update; > >> > + return sl2vl_update_table(sm, p, 1, 0x30000, > >> > force_update, > >> > + &qcfg->sl2vl); > >> > + } > >> > + > >> > for (i = 1; i < num_ports; i++) { > >> > p = osm_node_get_physp_ptr(node, i); > >> > force_update = p->need_update || sm->p_subn->need_update; > >> > for (j = 0; j < num_ports; j++) > >> > - if (sl2vl_update_table(sm, p, i, j, force_update, > >> > - &qcfg->sl2vl)) > >> > + if (sl2vl_update_table(sm, p, i, i << 8 | j, > >> > + force_update, > >> > &qcfg->sl2vl)) > >> > ret = -1; > >> > } > >> > > >> > > >> > , does it look fine for you? > >> > >> In the optimized case, doesn't this send extra SL2VL mapping table ? > > > > I don't see how, could you elaborate? > > Doesn't this send a table for the endport even when optimized ?
Yes, and how is this different from the original patch? Remember, that there is a different configuration for switch's port 0 (needed or not - this is another question), so we must to take it into account. 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