On 12/03/2012 08:26 AM, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
Signed-off-by: Alex Netes<ale...@mellanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Hal Rosenstock<h...@mellanox.com>
---
opensm/osm_torus.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/opensm/osm_torus.c b/opensm/osm_torus.c
index c06f8d4..075f84a 100644
--- a/opensm/osm_torus.c
+++ b/opensm/osm_torus.c
@@ -8089,7 +8089,7 @@ void torus_update_osm_vlarb(void *context, osm_physp_t
*osm_phys_port,
* So, leave VL 0 alone, remap VL 4 to VL 1, zero out the rest,
* and compress out the zero entries to the end.
*/
- if (!sw || !port_num ||
+ if (!sw || !port_num || sw->port[port_num] ||
sw->port[port_num]->pgrp->port_grp != 2 * TORUS_MAX_DIM)
return;
With the patch as-is, if torus_update_osm_vlarb() returns early
for any non-NULL switch port, it will never do any updates.
If the crash was that sw->port[port_num] was NULL,
shouldn't the check be !sw->port[port_num] ?
Can you tell me more about the test case that leads to the crash?
Is it that there's a switch with a port that's not connected
to anything, and torus_update_osm_vlarb() was called for it?
Testing for a non-NULL sw->port[port_num] is definitely the right
thing to do to handle that case, and I'm sorry I missed it earlier.
If not, then something else is likely broken, and we need to find
and fix that.
-- Jim
--
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
