On 14:18 Mon 24 May , Arthur Kepner wrote: > > > ..... > > > /* do a sweep if we received a trap */ > > > if (sm->p_subn->opt.sweep_on_trap) { > > > > > - /* if this is trap number 128 or run_heavy_sweep is TRUE - > > > - update the force_heavy_sweep flag of the subnet. > > > - Sweep also on traps 144 - these traps signal a change of > > > - certain port capabilities. > > > - TODO: In the future this can be changed to just getting > > > - PortInfo on this port instead of sweeping the entire subnet. > > > */ > > > - if (ib_notice_is_generic(p_ntci) && > > > - (cl_ntoh16(p_ntci->g_or_v.generic.trap_num) == 128 || > > > - cl_ntoh16(p_ntci->g_or_v.generic.trap_num) == 144 || > > > - run_heavy_sweep)) { > > > - OSM_LOG(sm->p_log, OSM_LOG_VERBOSE, > > > - "Forcing heavy sweep. Received trap:%u\n", > > > + if (!sm->p_subn->sweeping_enabled) { > > > + OSM_LOG(sm->p_log, OSM_LOG_DEBUG, > > > + "sweeping disabled - ignoring trap %u\n", > > > cl_ntoh16(p_ntci->g_or_v.generic.trap_num)); > > > > Isn't this case already handled in osm_state_mgr_process() and this code > > addition in osm_trap_rcv.c redundant? > > It is redundant.
So could you remove this part from the patch? The rest seems fine for me. 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