Ted, One point of minor confusion for me is that you have another ongoing PSARC case that overlaps this one (PSARC 2009/365). I can guess that you intended this case to supersede that one, but can you please make that explicit here? If that's indeed the case, please close 2009/365 appropriately.
On 03/10/10 06:52 PM, Ted Kim wrote: > 4.2.3 Update IBD driver to use Brussels framework (CR 6883212) > > IPoIB tunables are managed today through /etc/system file or ibd.conf. > For example, to modify the 'linkmode' of the IPoIB link, one needs to edit > ibd.conf and reboot the system. We want to replace this interface so that > user can manage these tunables using dladm(1M). > > 4.3 Proposal > > A micro/patch binding is asserted for this proposal. It isn't entirely obvious to me if a Solaris 10 consumer of IPoIB would be required to do anything after this project is hypothetically applied as a patch. Assuming of course that there is a patch for this project (which seems somewhat unlikely given the implicit dependencies on dozens of other dladm-related projects with Minor binding), one requirement of patch binding is that there are no incompatible changes introduced by the patch. Is that the case? On a related note, the materials don't explicitly state the case dependencies, but I believe this case has a dependency on PSARC 2007/429. Pulling on that case's string, the sweater that would need to get backported into a patch gets quickly unraveled. ;-) > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > | InfiniBand Specific Link Properties | > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > | linkmode | ON Consolidation Private | > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Given that it's Consolidation Private, I take it that this is a private property (as defined by 2007/429). I was under the impression that private properties had to be prefixed by a '_' character as required by the Brussels framework. Is that not the case? -Seb
