On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> On 11:38 Thu 12 Nov , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>>
>> We've cared for several years now (babbling port policy was introduced
>> into the master on 7/6/07) but this issue still persists. Are you
>> saying no reports for these traps until th
On 11:38 Thu 12 Nov , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>
> We've cared for several years now (babbling port policy was introduced
> into the master on 7/6/09) but this issue still persists. Are you
> saying no reports for these traps until the trap rate is obeyed ?
If existing trap rate filtering in Ope
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Hal Rosenstock
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Sasha Khapyorsky
> wrote:
>> On 08:46 Thu 12 Nov , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Any particular reason why there's no reporting of these traps?
>>>
>>> AFAIK it's been this way for at least the la
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> On 08:46 Thu 12 Nov , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
>> >
>> > Any particular reason why there's no reporting of these traps?
>>
>> AFAIK it's been this way for at least the last 5 or 6 years.
>
> Yes, this is what I found too tracking down gi
On 08:46 Thu 12 Nov , Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> >
> > Any particular reason why there's no reporting of these traps?
>
> AFAIK it's been this way for at least the last 5 or 6 years.
Yes, this is what I found too tracking down git/svn history.
> A practical consideration in changing this is tha
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Yevgeny Kliteynik
wrote:
> Hi Sasha,
>
> I noticed that OpenSM doesn't send InformInfo on traps 129/130/131.
> This is what osm_trap_rcv.c is doing:
>
> 322: static void trap_rcv_process_request(IN osm_sm_t * sm,
> 323: IN const osm_m
Hi Sasha,
I noticed that OpenSM doesn't send InformInfo on traps 129/130/131.
This is what osm_trap_rcv.c is doing:
322: static void trap_rcv_process_request(IN osm_sm_t * sm,
323: IN const osm_madw_t * p_madw)
...
435:if (ib_notice_is_generic(p_ntc
