On 14:31 Thu 07 Apr , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 4/7/2011 12:46 PM, Alex Netes wrote: > > Hi Hal, > > > > On 14:05 Tue 05 Apr , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > >> > >> PKey table capacities are not required to be multiples of the PKey table > >> block > >> size (32 entries of 16 pkeys). > > ^^^^^^^ > 16 bit pkeys > > >> > >> Current code could enable partition enforcement on the peer switch port > >> even if the last partition table block were truncated. In this case, it's > >> better to disable partition enforcement on those ports. > >> > > > > What is the motivation for this patch? > > The policy question is what to do when that occurs. > > > In case where there are more pkeys than sw->switch_info.enforce_cap I guess > > enforcement won't be applied on pkeys > sw->switch_info.enforce_cap. > > The SM shouldn't set any such entries in the PKey table per 14.2.5.7 > P_KEYTABLE p. 842 line 37: > > The AttributeModifier is divided in two halves: > • The least significant 16 bits are a pointer to a block of 32 P_Key > entries to which this Attribute applies. Valid values are 0 - 2047, and > are further limited by the size of the P_Key table for that node > (specified by the PartitionCap for CAs, routers, and switch management > ports or PartitionEnforcementCap for external ports on switches). > > so a conforming SMA should reject such a set. > > > This is a user configuration issue. > > Yes. > > > Why issue a warning message to a log isn't enough? > > That's the minimum that should be done. The question then becomes > whether it's better to enforce for some subset of the partitions or > disable enforrcement. I was trying to avoid another config option for this. >
Makes sense. Applied, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
