Sebastien Roy wrote: > 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? > Posting the short summary of the offline discussion with Seb.
This case depends on the number of other cases which have minor binding but this case does not introduce any new incompatible issues. As a part of this effort, we will integrate a upgrade script which will convert the old datalinks to the new model. We will update the case material to explicitly say about the dependencies and upgrade plan. regards, Sudhakar > 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 -- ---------------------------------------------- Arise Awake Stop Not till the goal is reached ---------------------------------------------- Sudhakar Dindukurti Oracle America, Inc 17, Network Circle, Rm#3384 (650) 786 8563 (Work) Menlo Park, CA 94025
