[ofa-general] RE: [PATCH] opensm: Bug in coding trying to set vl_arb_high_limit

[Eitan Zahavi]

Ohh your right. The Enh0 should get an update. 
I thought I got it right. Do you want me to provide an updated patch?

Eitan Zahavi
Senior Engineering Director, Software Architect
Mellanox Technologies LTD
Tel:+972-4-9097208
Fax:+972-4-9593245
P.O. Box 586 Yokneam 20692 ISRAEL

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sasha Khapyorsky [mailto:sashak at voltaire.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:22 PM
> To: Eitan Zahavi
> Cc: OPENIB; hal.rosenstock at gmail.com; Yevgeny Kliteynik
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] opensm: Bug in coding trying to set 
> vl_arb_high_limit
> 
> Hi Eitan,
> 
> On 19:31 Wed 18 Jul     , Eitan Zahavi wrote:
> > Hi Sasha
> > 
> > When QoS setup is done the code was trying to send updates of 
> > vl_arb_high_limit by req_set of PORT_INFO with the new data.
> > However, at that stage the SM still did not assign LIDs to 
> the ports.
> > So the sent PortInfo.base_lid was still zero. The 
> specification does 
> > not allow for such LIDs (they are considered ilegal).
> > 
> > the patch below fixes this by storing the calculated value 
> and later 
> > using it in link and lid managers.
> 
> Good, Thanks (and this also saves one PortInfo update MAD). 
> One question below:
> 
> 
> > 
> > Eitan
> > 
> > Signed-off-by:  Eitan Zahavi <eitan at mellanox.co.il>
> > 
> 
> [snip...]
> 
> > diff --git a/opensm/opensm/osm_lid_mgr.c 
> b/opensm/opensm/osm_lid_mgr.c 
> > index bc3f8b3..ed76382 100644
> > --- a/opensm/opensm/osm_lid_mgr.c
> > +++ b/opensm/opensm/osm_lid_mgr.c
> > @@ -1182,6 +1182,14 @@ __osm_lid_mgr_set_physp_pi(
> >             ib_port_info_get_port_state(p_old_pi) )
> >          send_set = TRUE;
> >      }
> > +
> > +	 /* provide the vl_high_limit from the qos mgr */
> > +	 if (p_mgr->p_subn->opt.no_qos == FALSE) 
> > +		 if (p_physp->vl_high_limit != p_old_pi->vl_high_limit)
> > +		 {
> > +			 send_set = TRUE;
> > +			 p_pi->vl_high_limit = p_physp->vl_high_limit;
> > +		 }
> 
> This part of code is for port_num != 0, so VLHighLimit setup 
> will be skipped for switch enhanced port 0. Is it something 
> expected? If so why?
> 
> Sasha
>