On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:47:48PM -0500, Hal Rosenstock wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Jason Gunthorpe >> <jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:38:27PM -0500, Hal Rosenstock wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Jason Gunthorpe >> >> <jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:26:26PM -0500, Hal Rosenstock wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > I don't think there is really any free interpretation here. For >> >> >> > everything but a switch localPortNum must always reflect the port >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > portGUID is associated with. >> >> >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, this is not always true due to the funky cross (CA and >> >> >> router) port PortInfo queries (but I don't think that query style is >> >> >> used by OpenSM for CA or router ports but allowed in IBA)... >> >> > >> >> > What part of the spec are you referring to here? >> >> >> >> IBA 1.2.1 v1 p.830 line 9 the otherwise sentence. >> > >> > That is talking about PortInfo. NodeInfo does not support that >> > attribute modifier language, my patch affects SANodeRecord. >> >> My bad :-( I was thinking of PortInfoRecord, not NodeRecord, for some >> reason... > > No worries, what do you think about my patch, does it align with what > IBA intends?
Yes from my brief scan/understanding of what it's trying to accomplish. I haven't probed/analyzed the actual fix itself. I guess LocalPortNum in NodeRecord was not so important to anyone before now. -- Hal > Thanks, > Jason > -- 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
