|
Eitan, the main (and
only) purpose of the IS_SM bit is for SM to SM coordination. As a matter of
fact it means that when discavering a port with this bit you have to query it
with sminfo to see if he is the master or maybe it should be the master. There
is not other use. Having an application other then the SM respond to the sminfo
would not work in the current scheme. As a matter of fact it maybe
catastrophic – meaning it may lead to multiple masters SM in the
subnet!!! I really don’t
understand what resources you refer to. I think I know the OpenSM pretty well
but maybe I have new things to learn. Please enlighten me. Ref-counting too is
useless. There should be only one SM on the port. I see not reason to change
that. Shahar From: Eitan
Zahavi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Shahar> Yes, but when you want to respond to
attributes you have to specify a mask. Using that mask you can register to any
attribute set you want. Yes, but if the application (that is not an SM)
will use a mask that has the sminfo set - it will be considered an SM. I would prefer having the SMBit stay on when
the SM dies then having spurious SMBit transitions. It will take more resources from the SM when
these bits will start to change. Also you will need to start ref-counting on the
port since several apps can share it and they will not obey the rule for not
masking the sminfo if they are not SMs. Eitan
Zahavi Design Technology Director Mellanox Technologies LTD Tel:+972-4-9097208 |
_______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list openib-general@openib.org http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
