[ofa-general] [PATCH] IB/CM: add support for routed paths

[Hal Rosenstock]

On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 14:02 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 10:50:01AM -0800, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> 
> > Guess I don't see much difference (on the passive side) in checking the
> > LIDs for permissive or the subnet local field to determine whether to
> > use the LIDs from the LRH. The only difference is this additional
> > special meaning to the permissive LIDs.
> 
> I think there are three cases here:
> 
> 1) It is subnet local, the node should just use the lids
> 2) It is not subnet local, and the necessary local lids are not known.
>    The node should do the LRH copy work around
> 3) It is not subnet local, and the necessary local lids are provided.
>    The node shoul djust use the the lids.
> 
> Just using the subnet local field does not provide enough information
> to tell which of the three cases we need to use.

Thanks; that was what I was missing.

-- Hal

> 
> I expect the main use of the subnet local bit should be control use
> of a GRH on that path - we have overloaded hoplimit for that case
> which is probably not entirely correct.
> 
> Jason